alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

CRESCENT BANKING COMPANY

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Crescent Banking Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Leland W. Brantley, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, based on my knowledge, that:



| | 1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/ LELAND W. BRANTLEY, JR.

Leland W. Brantley, Jr.

Chief Financial Officer

May 15, 2009

This certification
accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.
AIRCRAFT AND EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF SAFETY 

The applicant proposes that the exemption requested herein 

apply to civil aircraft that have the characteristics and that 

operate with the limitations listed herein. These limitations 

provide for at least an equivalent or possibly higher level of 

safety to operations under the current regulator structure 

because the proposed operations represent a safety 

enhancement to the already safe filming operations 

conducted with conventional aircraft. These limitations and 

condition to which James C Suss agrees to be bound when 

conducting commercial operations under an FAA issued 

exemption include: 

1. The sUAS will weigh less than 5 lbs. 

2. Flights will be operated manually within visual line of 

sight (VLOS) of the Pilot and aircrew (Spotter / 

Observer). 

3. Maximum total flight time for each operational flight will 

be 25 minutes. Flights will be terminated at 25% battery 

power reserve should that occur prior to the 25 minute 

limit. 

4. Flights will be operated at an altitude of no more than 

400 feet AGL, though most operations will be 

conducted within 50 feet of the ground

5. Minimum two (2) man crew for each sUAS operation 

will consist of the Pilot and Spotter / Observer. In most 

cases the third aircrew member will serve as the Safety 

Officer. 

6. The sUAS pilot will view online training videos for specific type of 

filming needs as well as stay current with rules, laws, safety 

techniques, filming practices, pilot(s)s are required to take at least 1 

continuing education course offered through a 3rd party every year. 

The Spotter (Observer) will hold at least a third class 

medical.
Constance BUCHANAN, as legal guardian of John Doe, a fictitious name for a minor, Appellant, v. CROSSROADS UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, INC., a Florida Non-Profit Corporation, Campus Crusade for Christ, Inc., and Christopher Robert Bacca, Appellees.

No. 1D18-1821

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 20, 2018

Gerald B. Stewart, Jacksonville; Willie J. Walker of The Walker Law Offices, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Michael R. D'Lugo of Wicker Smith O'Hara McCoy & Ford, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee Campus Crusade for Christ.

No appearance for Appellees Crossroads United Methodist Church or Christopher Robert Bacca.

Per Curiam.

Upon consideration of Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal and Appellant's Response in Opposition, the Court has determined that the appeal must be dismissed because the "Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Partial Final Judgment as to Count VIII" is not an appealable partial final judgment. *See**Jensen v. Whetstine* , 985 So.2d 1218, 1220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) ("An order is not an appealable partial final order where there is a factual overlap between the pending claims and the claims resolved by the order.") *Cf.* Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(k). "An appeal from an order dismissing a count of a complaint, where other counts against the same parties remain, is authorized only when the dismissed count arises from a separate and distinct transaction independent of the other pending, pleaded claims." *Biasetti v. Palm Beach Blood Bank, Inc.* , 654 So.2d 237, 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) ; *see also**Harrison v. J.P.A. Enters., L.L.C.* , 51 So.3d 1217, 1219 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Appellant's complaint includes two pending counts alleging claims against the same defendant for damages stemming from the same conduct as Count VIII. Therefore, the claims are interrelated and the order on Count VIII is not independently appealable as a partial final judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(k).

The appeal is hereby DISMISSED .

Rowe, Kelsey, and Winokur, JJ., concur.
EIA

Facility Code Facility Name Boiler ID 

### Duke Marshall Marshall Unit 1-2

1 8/5/2010 8:09 8/5/2010 2 8/5/2010 9:40 8/5/2010 3 8/5/2010 11:13 8/5/2010 Run Number Test Start Date Test Start Time Test End DateMeasured Value (ppm) Basis (Wet or Dry) Test Method Used



### 9:21 [<0.0594] Dry Method 26A 

### 10:52 [<0.0619] Dry Method 26A 

### 12:25 [<0.0604] Dry Method 26A Method 26A Method 26A Method 26A Test End Time Chlorine Emission Test ResultsData Flag (ADL,

BDL, DDL) Test Method

Comments 

### BDL RL based on MDL [<0.00017] 13.3 BDL RL based on MDL [<0.00018] 13.3 BDL RL based on MDL [<0.00018] 13.7 Calculated Emission Rate (lb/mmBtu) Steam Output

(1000 lb/hr) Total Heat

Input (mmBtu/hr) Flue Gas

Moisture (%)Fuel Input Rate Fuel Type Units of Me asure Me asurement

Method 

### 11.66 7.83 

### 2,145,159 124.8 11.67 7.84 2,147,440 124.8 11.64 7.88 2,112,096 125 Flue Gas CO 2(%) Flue Gas

O 2(%) Flue Gas

Flow Rate (dscfm) Flue Gas

Temperature (F) Fuel #1Fuel Input

Rate Fuel Type Units of Measure Measurement

Method Fuel Input Rate Fuel Type Units of Me asure Me asurement

Method Fuel #2 Fuel #3Fuel Input

Rate Fuel Type Units of Measure Measurement

Method Other Supporting Information Fuel #4
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Annual Report of Salon Media Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard Gingras, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and





(2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








June 25, 2010

/s/  Richard GingrasRichard GingrasChief Executive Officer
Exhibit 31.2

Certifications

I, Stephen E. Hare,
certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Office Depot, Inc.; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                                                     
|------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ STEPHEN E. HARE
|Name:               |  | Stephen E. Hare                                     
|Title:              |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|Date:               |  | April 3, 2015
Alfonso OVIEDO, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1546

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

AUGUST 31, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.
Exhibit
      32




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**




SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the Annual Report of Michelex Corporation (the “Registrant”) on
      Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), we,
      Thomas Gramuglia, President and Sharon Bishop, Secretary of the Registrant,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)
      The
      Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)
      The
      information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Registrant.




Date: November
              1, 2006
            By:
            /s/ Tom
              GramugliaName:
                Tom Gramuglia
              Title:
                President




Date: November
              1, 2006
            By:
            /s/ Sharon
              BishopName:
                Sharon Bishop
              Title:
                Secretary
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350

(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Valassis Communications, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to the best of his knowledge and belief that:

(1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                   |  |                        
|------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Dated: May 8, 2006 |  | /s/ Robert L. Recchia  
|                   |  | Robert L. Recchia      
|                   |  | Chief Financial Officer



23
Consent of Norwest Corporation
 
 We consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of New Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, of references to our name in connection with, and to the use of information derived from, the technical report entitled “Blackwater Gold Project, British Columbia, NI 43-101 Technical Report on Feasibility Study” effective date January 14, 2014, included in the Annual Information Form of New Gold Inc. for the financial year ended December 31, 2013 and we consent to the incorporation by reference of such information in the registration statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-160500) of New Gold Inc.
 
 Dated this 28th day of March, 2014
 
 Norwest Corporation
 
 “Sean Ennis”
 ________________________________
 By:
 Title
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTONIA QUINTERO CARRIZOZA DE HUNT,
Petitioner,

v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent. No. 21

- 1399
Agency No. A 037

- 803

- 362

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 14, 2023 * * Phoenix , Arizona

Before: GOULD, HURWITZ, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Antonia Quintero Carrizoza de Hunt (“Carrizoza”) petition s for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal from
an order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying protection under the Convention

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

SEP 18 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the
petition for review

.
1. Reviewing de novo, see Oshodi v. Holder , 729 F.3d 883, 889 (9th Cir.
2013) (en banc) , we reject Carrizoza’s claim that she was denied due process because

the IJ declined to admit a police report and hospital records. To show a due process
violation, Carrizoza must establish that (1) the proceeding was so fundamentally
unfair that she was prevented from reasonably presenting her case and (2) the alleged
violation may have affected the outcome of the proceeding. See Vilchez v. Holder , 682 F.3d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir. 2012). That is not the case here. Carrizoza had almost
three years after the remand to the IJ to obtain any relevant documentation but failed

to seek the documents until t hirty days before the merits hearing and did not submit

them to the IJ until the day of the hearing. Moreover, although declining to admit
the documents, the IJ allowed Carrizoza to testify about them and found her
testimony credible.

2. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Carrizoza failed to show

a likelihood of torture if removed . “ In assessing whether it is more likely than not
that an applicant would be tortured in the proposed country of removal, ” an IJ should
consider “evidence of past torture” and “e vidence that the applicant could relocate

to

. . . where he or she is not likely to be tortured .” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(i)

– (ii)
(cleaned up). Although an attack by cartel members serious ly injured Carrizoza, t his3

Court has previously held that even severe beatings do not compel a finding of

torture. See Vitug v. Holder , 723 F.3d 1056, 1061, 1066 (9th Cir. 2013); Ahmed v.

Keisler , 504 F.3d 1183, 1200

– 01 (9th Cir. 2007); Kumar v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 1043,

1047

– 48, 1055 (9th Cir. 2006). And the IJ reasonably found that Carrizoza could

relocate in Mexico to avoid her attackers. See Tzompantzi

- Salazar v. Garland , 32
F.4th 696, 704

– 05 (9th Cir. 2022)

. Carrizoza lived without incident in Mexico for

over six months after the attack, and her brother lives safely in a different part of

Mexico

.
PETITION DENIED

.
Larry Dean STUTZMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2733

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 10, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
tramendfordiroptions.htm


    
      
         


      

      
         


        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    


    EXHIBIT
1

     

    DIRECTOR
OPTION TERMS (amended December 3, 2008)

     

    Name of
Grantee:                                                                Timothy
Redpath

     

    Date of
Grant:                                                                January
1, 2006

     

    Number of
Shares
Granted:                                                                           73,833

     

    Exercise
Price:                                                      $0.01625

     

    Type of
Option

    (Qualified
or
Non-Qualified):                                                                           Non-Qualified

    


    Vesting:                                                      24,611
shares have vested prior to December 3, 2008

     

    
      	
               
      

            	
              49,222
      shares have vested on December 3,
2008

            


    

     

    


     

    


     

    Amendment
of Option Terms agreed to by Grantee:

     

    


     

    ___/s/ Timothy
Redpath_________________

     

    Print
Name: Timothy Redpath
Alex H. GOMEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D15-4987

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


      In connection with the Annual Report of Salon Media Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Elizabeth Hambrecht, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

      (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




                                        /s/ Elizabeth Hambrecht
                                        -----------------------
October 31, 2006                        Elizabeth Hambrecht
                                        Chief Executive Officer and President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

       

<S>                         <C>   
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                          653,129
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                 4,100,672
<ALLOWANCES>                     83,650
<INVENTORY>                     511,958
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              5,703,390
<PP&E>                        2,503,033
<DEPRECIATION>                1,859,955
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               16,012,716
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         4,075,991
<BONDS>                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                         28,446
<OTHER-SE>                    8,888,279
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 16,012,716
<SALES>                      16,146,524
<TOTAL-REVENUES>             16,146,524
<CGS>                        10,776,203
<TOTAL-COSTS>                10,776,203
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>             (276,566)
<INCOME-PRETAX>              (3,288,486)
<INCOME-TAX>                 (1,543,300)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>          (4,831,786)
<DISCONTINUED>               (1,867,001)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                 (6,698,787)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        0
        


</TABLE>
Paul STILL, Appellant, v. SUWANNEE RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1940

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Marlon FOSTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3283

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Evgenie MARAKOU, Appellant(s)/petitioner(s), v. Volha SUSHKOVA, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1922

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

AUGUST 31, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### Joseph ORTIZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee, and Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondent.

No. 17-6236

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 23, 2017

*140Joseph Ortiz, Appellant Pro Se.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Ortiz seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, 28 U.S.C., § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ortiz has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       1,010,659
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  169,284
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,179,943
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,747,607
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,070
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,742,537
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,747,607
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               727,059
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               338,639
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                388,420
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   388,420
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>