alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

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

          I, Stuart A. Tashlik, as Chief Financial Officer of The FINOVA Group
Inc. (the "Company") certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

          (1)  the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the period ending June 30,
2002 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (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: August 14, 2002
                                           /s/ Stuart A. Tashlik
                                           ----------------------------
                                           Stuart A. Tashlik,
                                           Chief Financial Officer
Nakeshia HENDERSON, Appellant, v. Wilbur HENDERSON, Appellee.

No. 1D17-808

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 27, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Gordon CRITTENDON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-92

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 5, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
(1)
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of StemCells, Inc.;(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;(3)
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
quarterly report;(4)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     (5)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors
and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):
    /s/ Martin McGlynnMartin McGlynnPresident and Chief Executive Officer
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1444 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

132 North Loudoun Street, Suite 1 in Winchester, Virginia, as the 

‘‘Patsy Cline Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 26, 2021 

Ms. WEXTON (for herself, Mr. WITTMAN, Mrs. LURIA, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, 

Mr. MCEACHIN, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, Mr. CLINE, Ms. SPANBERGER, 

Mr. BEYER, Mr. GRIFFITH, and Mr. CONNOLLY) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 132 North Loudoun Street, Suite 1 in Winchester, Virginia, as the ‘‘Patsy Cline Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PATSY CLINE POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 132 North Loudoun Street, Suite 

6 1 in Winchester, Virginia, shall be known and designated 

7 as the ‘‘Patsy Cline Post Office’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1444 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Patsy Cline Post Of5 fice’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
                              DAMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.

                          COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
           (DOLLAR AND SHARE AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
                                     (UNAUDITED)


                                                            Quarter Ended
                                                       ------------------------
                                                       March 29,      March 30,
                                                         1997           1996
                                                       ---------      ---------
PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE

Income (loss) applicable to common stock . . . . . . . $   401        $  (185)
                                                         -----          -----
                                                         -----          -----
Weighted average number of common and common
   equivalent shares outstanding:
     Weighted average common shares outstanding. . . .   8,054          8,700
     Dilutive effect of stock options
       after application of treasury stock method. . .     354             --
                                                         -----          -----
                                                         8,408          8,700
                                                         -----          -----
                                                         -----          -----


Income (loss) per common and common equivalent share .$    .05        $  (.02)
                                                         -----          -----
                                                         -----          -----


FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE

Income (loss) applicable to common stock . . . . . . .$    401        $  (185)
                                                         -----          -----
                                                         -----          -----
Weighted average number of common and common
   equivalent shares outstanding:
     Weighted average common shares outstanding. . . .   8,054          8,700
     Dilutive effect of stock options
       after application of treasury stock method. . .     354             --
                                                         -----          -----
                                                         8,408          8,700
                                                         -----          -----
                                                         -----          -----



Income (loss) per common and common equivalent share .$    .05        $  (.02)
                                                         -----          -----
                                                         -----          -----

                                          12
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          87,242
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,681
<ALLOWANCES>                                       353
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               107,652
<PP&E>                                          11,405
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,336
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 172,539
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,465
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            45
<OTHER-SE>                                     158,029
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   172,539
<SALES>                                         30,023
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                88,139
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    77
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  35
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (56,773)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (57,068)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### IN RE: John SHEK, Debtor. *783John Shek, Appellant, v. Janina M. Hoskins, Trustee; United States Trustee, Appellees.

No. 14-60077

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 18, 2017 *

Filed January 26, 2017

John Shek, Pro Se

Janina M. Hoskins, Pro Se

Terri Hawkins Didion, Trial Attorney, Office of the U.S. Trustee, Fresno, CA, Donna S. Tamanaha, Assistant United States, Office of the U.S. Trustee, San Francisco, CA, for Appellee

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

John Shek appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing Shek’s bankruptcy petition for failure to file timely schedules and other required documents. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. *Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian),*564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court properly dismissed Shek’s bankruptcy petition because Shek failed to file all required documents in a timely manner, despite at least three extensions of the deadline by the bankruptcy court. *See*11 U.S.C. § 521(a), (i); *see also Wirum v. Warren (In re Warren),*568 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 2009) (discussing dismissals under 11 U.S.C. § 521).

We reject Shek’s arguments, made for the first time on appeal, that the bankruptcy court should have waived the filing requirements, and that his property was improperly sold. *See Kaass Law v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,*799 F.3d 1290, 1293 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Ordinarily, an appellate court will not hear an issue raised for the first time on appeal.”); *In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig.,*618 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2010) (an issue will generally be deemed waived on appeal if the argument was not raised sufficiently for the trial court to rule on it).

Contrary to Shek’s contention that his filing fee should have been waived, he did not apply for waiver of the fee. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 24.

We reject as unsupported by the record Shek’s argument that an attorney representing the United States Trustee tricked Shek into waiving his rights.

Shek’s request to deny the appearance of Terri Didion' on behalf of the United States Trustee, filed July 15, 2015, is denied.

Shek’s “request[s] unavailability,” filed July 31, 2015, and October 14, 2015, are denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.2



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 Yak Communications Inc. (the
Company) Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Margaret Noble, principal financial 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, to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1). | 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.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |     |  |                            
|------------------ |  | --- |  | ---------------------------
|Date: May 31, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Margaret Noble         
|                   |  |     |  | Margaret Noble             
|                   |  |     |  | Principal Financial Officer
#### Jose Miguel MADRIGALES-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent

No. 16-60376 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 15, 2017

Raed Gonzalez, Esq., Senior Attorney, Gonzalez Olivieri, L.L.C., Houston, TX, Sheridan Gary Green, Sheridan Green Law, P.L.L.C., Houston, TX, for Petitioner

Anthony Ogden Pottinger, Trial Attorney, Regina Byrd, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, Washington, DC, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Wáshington, DC, for Respondent

*92Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Miguel Madrigales-Rodríguez (Ma-drigales) has petitioned for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our review is for an abuse of discretion. *See Zhao v. Gonzales,*404 F.3d 295, 303-04 (5th Cir. 2005).

Madrigales wishes to petition for cancellation of removal. His original request for such relief was denied because he had not shown 10 years of continuous presence in the United States. Madrigales contends that he was deprived of an opportunity to make such a showing by counsel’s unprofessional representation.

Madrigales has waived by failing to brief the question whether the BIA abused its discretion in determining that he was ineligible for cancellation of removal because his motion to reopen was filed after the expiration of the voluntary departure period. *See Soadjede v. Ashcroft,*324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003); *see also*8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)(1)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(e)(2). He has also waived the questions whether the BIA abused its discretion in concluding that his proposed asylum application was untimely and that his proposed application for withholding of removal was not cognizable and was without merit. *See Soadjede,*324 F.3d at 833.

As to his due process claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Madrigales must demonstrate that counsel’s unprofessional actions were substantially prejudicial to his case. *See Mai v. Gonzales,*473 F.3d 162, 165 (5th Cir. 2006). That is, he must make a.prima facie showing that there is a reasonable likelihood that, upon reopening, the relief sought will be granted. *See Miranda-Lores v. INS,*17 F.3d 84, 85 (5th Cir. 1994).

Madrigales’s unsubstantiated allegations and self-serving assertions are insufficient. *See Ogunfuye v. Holder,*610 F.3d 303, 306-07 (5th Cir. 2010); *Miranda-Lores,*17 F.3d at 85; *see also*8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B). Because Madrigales has not shown that there is a reasonable likelihood that, upon reopening, cancellation of removal would be granted, the petition for review is DENIED. *See Mai,*473 F.3d at 165; *Miranda-Lores,*17 F.3d at 85.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Richard Allen LAPOSTA, DOC# Y59981, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-89

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Surface Transportation Board

The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from University of California, Berkeley (WB22-14—1/31/22) for permission to use data from the Board's 1984-2019 Unmasked Carload Waybill Sample. A copy of this request may be obtained from the Board's website under docket no. WB22-14.

The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics within 14 calendar days of the date of this notice. The rules for release of waybill data are codified at 49 CFR 1244.9.

*Contact:*                     Alexander Dusenberry, (202) 245-0319.                

Regena Smith-Bernard,

Clearance Clerk.

[FR Doc. 2022-02695 Filed 2-8-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Harman International Industries, Incorporated (the Company)
for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officers knowledge:



| | 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 as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 19, 2009





|       |  |                                                                                   
|------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|       |  | /s/    DINESH PALIWAL                                                             
|Name:  |  | Dinesh Paliwal                                                                    
|Title: |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (Principal
Executive Officer)                
|       | 
|       |  | /s/    HERBERT PARKER                                                             
|Name:  |  | Herbert Parker                                                                    
|Title: |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)



The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
In re : C APITAL OPTIONS, LLC ,

De btor,

______________________ C APITAL OPTIONS, LLC ,

Appe lla nt,
v. C . DENNIS LOOM IS; B AKER HOSTETLER , LLP,

Appe lle e s. No. 16-60052 B AP No. 15-1165
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Ninth C irc uit B ankruptc y

Appe lla te Pane l Kurtz , Jury , a

nd Ja im e , B ankruptc y

Judge s, Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 17, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WALLAC E , C A LLAHAN, a nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. 

# F IL ED JAN 10 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.This is a n a ppe a l from the B ankruptc y C ourt’ s dism issa l of c la im s by C a pita l Options, LLC(C a

pita l) a ga inst a

n attorne y , C . De nnis Loomis, a nd his la w firm , B ake r Hoste tle r LLP (c olle c tive ly Loom is). C a

p ita l a lle ge d tha

t it ha d a n inte re s t in a

nothe r orga

niz a tion, G2, LLC (G2), a nd tha t Loom is wa s a

truste e of G2 funds a

n d thus ha d a

non-wa iva

ble fiduc ia

ry duty to C a pita l. The B a

nkruptc y C ourt, ha ving dism isse d C a p ita l’ s unde rly ing a dve rsary proc e e ding in whic h it
a sse rte d its intere s t in G2, dism isse d C a p ita l’ s c om

p la int a ga inst Loomi s. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 158(d)(1), a nd a ffirm
. A gra nt of a Fe de ra l R

u le of C ivil Proc e dure 12(b)(6) dism issa l is re vie we d de novo. C

oto Se ttle me nt v . Eise nbe rg , 593 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th C ir. 2010); se e also In re Trac ht Gut, LLC

, 836 F.3d 1146, 1150 (9th C ir. 2016) (“ A m otion to dism iss in a

n a d ve rsary ba nkruptc y proc e e ding is governe d by Fe de ra l R

ule of B ankruptc y

Proc e dure 7012(b), whic h inc orporate s Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e d ure 12(b)-(i)” ). Howe ve r, unde rly i ng fa c tua l findings a re re vie we d for
c le ar e rror. In reRe tz , 606 F.3d 1189, 1196 (9th C ir. 2010). In a c onte m pora n e ously file d m e m orandum

disposition in In reC

apital Options, LLC

, No. 15-60054, we

a ffirm the B ankruptc y

C ourt’ s dism i ssa l of C a pita l’ s re late d a dve rsary

proc e e ding. Ac c ordingly , a s C a pita l ha s fa ile d to de m onstra

te an inte re st in G2, it ha s fa ile d to show tha t Loom is, a s a

truste e of the
2G2 funds, ha s a ny fiduc ia ry duty to it. TheB ankruptc y

C ourt’ s dism issa l of C a pita l’ s c l a im s a ga inst Loomis is AFFIR M ED.

3
Ismet GJELOSHI and Fatima Gjeloshi, Appellants, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as Assignor to Yasso, Inc., Assignee/Assignor to TMF 12, LLC; Robert J. Wright; Dottie A. Wright; 1300 S. Highland Corp.; Mid-Ohio Securities as custodian for Michael J. Guju ; and Cville, Inc., Appellees.

Case Nos. 2D16-4812 2D17-310

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 23, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.