alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
      32





ANGIOGENX,
      INC.





SECTION
      1350 CERTIFICATIONS





In
      connection with the periodic report of ANGIOGENEX, INC., a Nevada corporation
      (the “Company”), on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, RICHARD SALVADOR,
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof,
      solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States
      Code, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
      the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, 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 at the dates
      and for the periods indicated.





This
      Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission.


Date:
              April 2, 2008By:
            /s/ Richard
              SalvadorRichard
              Salvador




In
      connection with the periodic report of ANGIOGENEX, INC., a Nevada corporation
      (the “Company”), on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, MARTIN MURRAY,
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof,
      solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States
      Code, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
      the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, 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 at the dates
      and for the periods indicated.





This
      Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission.


Date:
              April 2, 2008By:
            /s/ Martin
              MurrayMartin
                Murray
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6414 

To make Ecuador eligible for designation as a beneficiary country under 

the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 14, 2023 

Ms. SALAZAR (for herself, Mr. ESPAILLAT, Mr. BUCHANAN, Mr. DAVIDSON, 

and Mr. GALLEGO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To make Ecuador eligible for designation as a beneficiary 

country under the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Innovation and Devel5 opment in Ecuador Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF ECUADOR FOR DESIGNATION AS A 

7 BENEFICIARY COUNTRY UNDER CARIBBEAN 

8 BASIN ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 212(b) of the Caribbean 

10 Basin Economic Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2702(b)) is 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6414 IH

1 amended by inserting after ‘‘Dominica’’ the following new 

2 item: 

3 ‘‘Ecuador’’. 

4 (b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con5 gress that the President should, not later than 90 days 

6 after the date of the enactment of this Act, issue a procla7 mation designating Ecuador as a CBTPA beneficiary 

8 country (as such term is defined in section 213(b)(5)(B) 

9 of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (19 

10 U.S.C. 2703(b)(5)(B)). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
<PAGE>

Exhibit 31(a)

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                         PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John D. Bair, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Pinnacle Data
Systems, 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 report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

5. The registrant's other certifying officer 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):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: August 12, 2003

/s/ John D. Bair
--------------------------
Chief Executive Officer

                                      -23-
#### In the Matter of Joseph P. McLaughlin, Appellant, against William Wilson, as Commissioner of the Department of Housing and Buildings of the City of New York, et al., Respondents. In the Matter of John H. Newman, Appellant, against The Same, Respondents. In the Matter of Henry C. Wist, Appellant, against The Same, Respondents. In the Matter of Alexander Newman, Appellant, against The Same, Respondents. In the Matter of Edmund F. Konrady, Appellant, against The Same, Respondents. In the Matter of George J. Northrup, Appellant, against The Same, Respondents. In the Matter of August Nebgen, Appellant, against The Same, Respondents. In the Matter of Charles J. Falk, Appellant, against The Same, Respondents. In the Matter of Anthony A. McNally, Appellant, against The Same, Respondents. In the Matter of John E. Manion, Appellant, against The Same, Respondents. In the Matter of Louis Sweet, Appellant, against The Same, Respondents. In the Matter of Charles Zoufaly, Appellant, against The Same, Respondents. In the Matter of William Bartow, Appellant, against The Same, Respondents. In the Matter of John J. Lundon, Appellant, against The Same, Respondents. In the Matter of Harry P. Wasserman, Appellant, against The Same, Respondents. In the Matter of Harold U. Lockwood, Appellant, against The Same, Respondents.

Submitted February 23, 1943;

decided March 4, 1943.

*661
      *Thomas D. Thacher, Corporation Counsel (Paxton Blair*and *Henry J. Shields*of counsel), for motion.

*George Gordon Battle*opposed.

Motion granted and appeals dismissed with costs and ten dollars costs of motion.
#### Gustavo BERMUDEZ-BARAJAS, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-71921

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 16, 2016 *

Filed November 22, 2016

Gustavo Bermudez-Barajas, Pro Se, Perris, CA, for Petitioner.

Timothy Hayes, Trial Attorney, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Gustavo Bermudez-Barajas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. *Singh v. Holder,*771 F.3d 647, 650 (9th Cir. 2014). We grant the petition for review and remand.

Bermudez-Barajas moved to reopen so that he could pursue an I-601A provisional waiver of inadmissibility pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(e). At that time, an individual who had been in removal proceedings was eligible for the waiver only if the agency had administratively closed proceedings, instead of entering a removal order. *See*8 C.F.R. § 212.7(e)(4) (2013).

The BIA correctly noted that Bermudez-Barajas’ final order of removal rendered him ineligible for the waiver. However, the BIA abused its discretion in denying Ber-mudez-Barajas’ motion to reopen because it appears not to have considered whether he was entitled to reopening as a matter of discretion. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a); *Singh,*771 F.3d at 653 (the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen on jurisdictional grounds was legal error, and thus an abuse of discretion, because it had authority to reopen under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a)). We therefore grant the petition and remand for further proceedings.

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Bermudez-Barajas’ remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Mr. Michael Wolfe, SCS International February 28, 2011 and Alice Tome, Abt 

Associates, Inc.

He developed the process for SCS International. Most certifiers have labs but SCS does not 

and contracts out. He mentioned that the ASTM 1333 standard requires a large chamber and 

uses lots of material. He thinks that a small chamber test would be better. In China they are 

working on methods that use less sampling and more statistical analysis. They are not ISO 

accredited but have demonstrated equivalence and that is all that is required by CARB. They 

follow ISO guidelines but to actually get approved is very expensive and would reduce the profit. 

He says their internal audit caught items that ISO did not catch. 

He started from scratch and it took him 150 hours for the application to CARB – this included 

writing the manual. He thinks that doing this again would take half the time, 75 hours. I'm 

estimating it was $9,000 - $15,000. SCS did have the quality systems in place.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christian LAFARGO, a.k.a. Bossy, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50203

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*329Submitted September 26, 2017 *

FILED SEPTEMBER 29, 2017

Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Aron Ketchel, Jeff P. Mitchell, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Vicki Marolt Buchanan, Esquire, Sono-ma, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Christian Lafargo, Terre Haute, IN, pro se.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Christian Lafargo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 210-month aggregate sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for racketeering influenced and corrupt organizations conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); violent crime in aid of racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5); and discharging a firearm in furtherance of, and during and in relation to, a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l)(A)(iii). Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Lafargo’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Lafargo the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Lafargo waived his right to appeal his sentence. Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. *See United States v. Watson,*582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. *See id.*at 988.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.

**

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

   CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Barry Rowan, Executive Vice President, Chief
Financial Officer, certify that:

1. To my knowledge, this report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. To my knowledge, the information in this report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Nextel
Partners, Inc. as of December 31, 2005.

Date: March 15, 2006           /s/ BARRY ROWAN
                               ----------------------
                               Barry Rowan
                               Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
**~ ,;~.**  1
••

i 

## '§" STATE OF MICHIGAN


## , ·

..· - !IJEC •· 6 2012oEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

### ,c!**•c-.·~** LANSING 

## Rjlh**~NYDER** 

# DEQ

·!h:;qyERt;·icJ.R
November 29, 2012
VIA U.S. MAIL AND ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION Docket ID. EPA-R05-0AR-201 0-0954 Mr. Douglas Aburano United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 77 West Jackson Boulevard, AR-18J Chicago, Illinois 60604-3507 Dear Mr. Aburano: DAN WYANT DIRECTOR

We are writing to provide additional information regarding the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA's) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published at 77 Fed. Reg. 46912-46928, dated Monday, August 6, 2012, as it applies to the St. Mary Cement (SMC) facility in Charlevoix, Michigan. After recent discussions with SMC and further review ofthe applicability provisions in the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) rules and guidelines, it is the position ofthe Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), Air Quality Division (AQD) that SMC is not a BARTeligible source. As background, the AQD had determined that SMC was BART-eligible and included a BART analysis as part ofthe State Implementation Plan for Regional Haze, submitted to the USEPA in November 2010. The BART-eligibility determination was based on the fact that the original cement manufacturing facility began operation in the mid-1960s, which is within the BART-eligible window of 1962 through 1977. Recently, SMC determined they should not have been considered subject to the BART regulations because the cement-making operation was substantially reconstructed in the 1978-1979 timeframe: Because ofthe scope of the changes, the reconstructed facility was subject to the federal New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) requirements. A permit providing for the reconstruction was approved by the AQD in early 1978, outside the BART-eligibility window. The AQD has reviewed the permitting history of the cement facility as well as the BART rules and guidance. Because the reconstruction ofthe SMC facility was subject to the NSPS requirements and the reconstruction occurred outside the BART-eligibility window, we concur that the SMC facility should not be considered BART-eligible.

CONSTITUTION HALL • 525 \NEST ALLEGAN STREET • P.O. BOX 30473 • LJ:\NSING, MICHIGAN 48909-7973 'NWVV.michigan.gov/deq**~** (800) 662-9278Mr

. Douglas Aburano November 29, 2012 Page 2 We are submitting this information to you at the request of SMC. We recognize that SMC has been working directly with the USEPA since the proposal was published and we are aware that USEPA may have already taken final action on the proposed rulemaking. To the extent that this information is useful for future actions the EPA may take, the MDEQ is providing this as additional information

. Ifyou have any questions or require further information, please contact Mr

. Robert Irvine, AQD, at 517-373-7042 oryou may contact me.

cc: Mr

. John Summerhays, USEPA Sincerely,

# {!~ 

# ..**// ·** 

# ~.**~i~s~ :~** **~~ /**  Air Quality Division 517-373-7069

Mr

. Jim Sygo, Deputy Director, MDEQ Ms

. Lynn Fiedler, MDEQ Mr

. Robert Irvine, MDEQ Mr

. Asad Khan, MDEQ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial information extracted from SEC
     Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
     statements as of and for the nine months ended September 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000883946
<NAME>                        TREEV INC
<MULTIPLIER>                               1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             528
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,990
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1,216)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,138
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,422
<PP&E>                                           7,748
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (6,588)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  21,385
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,548
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,816
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    21,385
<SALES>                                         23,037
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,037
<CGS>                                           11,588
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,588
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,991
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 178
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,720)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,720)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,720)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.29)



</TABLE>
#### Anahit GEVORKYAN and Vahag Vardanyants, Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 11-72535

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

OCTOBER 3, 2017

Debra Jade Mundel, Marks & Acalin, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.

Lindsay Brooke Glauner, Esquire, Trial, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Anahit Gevorkyan and Vahag Vardan-yants, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing petitioners’ appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, including ad*464verse credibility findings. *Zamanov v. Holder,*649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on Gevorkyan’s prior submission of a fraudulent asylum application and documents, her false testimony during an asylum interview, and the inconsistencies regarding the neighbor who persecuted Gevorkyan. *See Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir. 2004) (adverse credibility finding supported where fraudulent documents and material inconsistencies in testimony went to the heart of the claim); *see also Singh v. Holder,*638 F.3d 1264, 1272 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[L]ies and fraudulent documents when they are no longer necessary for the immediate escape from persecution do support an adverse inference.”). Gevorkyan’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Gevorkyan’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and Gevorkyan does not point to any evidence that compels the finding it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Armenia. *See id.*at 1156-57.

We do not consider petitioners’ due process contention. *See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder,*706 F.3d 1072, 1079-1080 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are deemed waived).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 5

BY-LAW NO. 1A

OF

MICROMEM TECHNOLOGIES INC.

 

 

A BY-LAW TO AMEND SECTION 29 OF BY-LAW NO. 1 OF THECORPORATION RESPECTING THE REQUIREMENT FOR THEPRESIDENT TO BE APPOINTED FROM AMONGSTTHE DIRECTORS OF THE CORPORATION

 

BE IT ENACTED and it is hereby enacted as a by-law ofMicromem Technologies Inc. (hereinafter, the "Corporation") as follows:

Section 29 of By-Law No. 1 of the Corporation entitled, "ABy-Law Relating Generally to the Transaction of the Business and Affairs of MineLake Minerals Inc.", is hereby amended such that the following sentence:

"The President shall be appointed from amongst the    directors."

is hereby removed in its entirety and replaced with thefollowing sentence:

"The President may be but shall not be required to be    appointed from amongst the directors."

 

PASSED the 30th day of June, 1999.

 

|   | /s/ Sam Fuda                                          |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  Sam Fuda                                  |
|   | Title:     Chairman and Secretary |