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



Exhibit 99.1




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
EXECUTIVE
OFFICER REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS


I, Carl E. Vogel, the Chief Executive Officer of
Charter Communications Holdings, LLC and Charter Communications
Holdings Capital Corporation (the Company) in compliance
with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify
that, the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
period ended December 31, 2002 (the Report) filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission:



|  |  |                                                                                                                                                     
|- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                   
| |  | the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ Carl E. Vogel      
| |                        
| | Carl E. Vogel          
| | Chief Executive Officer
| | April 15, 2003
#### Patricia Mireles SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-70267

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

OCTOBER 3, 2017

Alejandro Garcia, Law Offices Of Alejandro Garcia, Commerce, CA, for Petitioner.

Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kathryn McKinney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 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 **

Patricia Mireles Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen in absentia removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations. *Martinez-Medina v. Holder,*673 F.3d 1029, 1033 (9th Cir. 2011), and we review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Arredondo v. Lynch,*824 F.3d 801, 805 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not err or violate due process in finding Mireles Sanchez removable as charged, because *Samayoa-Mar-tinez v. Holder*forecloses her contention that her statements to immigration officials at the border were obtained in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(c). 558 F.3d 897, 901-02 (9th Cir. 2009); *see Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (an alien must show error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

The agency also did not err or violate due process by admitting the Form 1-213, Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien and the Record of Sworn Statement, where the documents submitted were probative, their admission was fundamentally fair, and Mireles Sanchez failed to establish that they were inaccurate or obtained by coercion. *See Espinoza v. INS,*45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The burden of establishing a basis for exclusion of evidence from a government record falls on the opponent of the evidence, who must come forward with enough negative factors to persuade the court not to admit it.” (internal citations omitted)); *Lata,*204 F.3d at 1246.

*431The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Míreles Sanchez’s motion to reopen, where Míreles Sanchez’s evidence was insufficient to demonstrate an exceptional circumstance that prevented her from attending her hearing on June 13, 2012. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii);' 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(l) (defining exceptional circumstances as circumstances beyond the control of the alien).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Antonio CASTILLO-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40431

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 18, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Antonio Castillo-Martinez, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, SOUTHWICK, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Antonio Castillo-Martinez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Castillo-Martinez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion *396for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 17, 2019 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00308-CV 

STEVEN K. TOPLETZ, Appellant 

V. 

RAYGAN BRYCE WADLE, INDEPENDENT ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 

ESTATE OF LYNDA CARROLL WILLIS, DECEASED, INDIVIDUALLY AND 

ON BEHALF OF LANCASTER BLUEGROVE, L.P., Appellee 

On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 416-04120-2012 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Whitehill, Partida-Kipness, and Pedersen, III 

Opinion by Justice Whitehill 

Before the Court is appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellant explains that the 

appeal is now unnecessary because the trial court has vacated the appealed order. We grant the 

motion and dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). 

190308F.P05 

 

/Bill Whitehill/ 

BILL WHITEHILL 

JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

STEVEN K. TOPLETZ, Appellant 

No. 05-19-00308-CV V. 

RAYGAN BRYCE WADLE, 

INDEPENDENT ADMINISTRATOR OF 

THE ESTATE OF LYNDA CARROLL 

WILLIS, DECEASED, INDIVIDUALLY 

AND ON BEHALF OF LANCASTER 

BLUEGROVE, L.P., Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District 

Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 416-04120-2012. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill. 

Justices Partida-Kipness and Pedersen, III 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

 Subject to any agreement between the parties, it is ORDERED that appellee RAYGAN 

BRYCE WADLE, INDEPENDENT ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LYNDA 

CARROLL WILLIS, DECEASED, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF LANCASTER 

BLUEGROVE, L.P. recover his costs of this appeal from appellant STEVEN K. TOPLETZ. 

Judgment entered May 17, 2019
Nebraska Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinions

NOT Selected for Posting to Court Website

(released the week prior to March 23, 2021)

The following memorandum opinions were filed by the Nebraska Court of 

Appeals and can be viewed using SSCALES:

A-20-658 State v. Lopez-Tejeda

The above-listed memorandum opinions can be viewed online through the 

appellate court case search available by subscription through Nebraska.gov:

http://www.nebraska.gov/subscriber/.

Current subscribers to Nebraska.gov can search appellate court cases here:

https://www.nebraska.gov/courts/sccales/.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11969]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5074]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

48 CFR Chapter 2

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Appendix A, 
Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, Part 2--Rules

CFR Correction

    In Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 2 (Parts 
201 to 299), revised as of October 1, 2010, on page 516, in Appendix A, 
above the heading ``Preface'', the following heading and text is added;

APPENDIX A TO CHAPTER 2--ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

* * * * *

Part 2--Rules

    Approved 15 July 1963.
    Revised 1 May 1969.
    Revised 1 September 1973.
    Revised 30 June 1980.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-5074 Filed 3-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```
---

Exhibit 13.1

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 Micromem Technologies
Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the Fiscal Year Ended October 31, 2009
(the Report), I, Joseph Fuda, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 result of operations
      of the Company.

|Date: February 26, 2010 | /s/
      Joseph Fuda         | 
|----------------------- | ----------------------------- | 
|                        | Joseph Fuda                   | 
|                        | Chief Executive Officer       | 
|                        | (Principal executive officer) | 

---
### Appeal No s

. 2019AP820

2019AP821 Cir. Ct. No s

. 2018TP91

2018TP92



### STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT IV

N O



### . 2019AP820

I N RE THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO 

### K. T.,

A PERSON UNDER THE A GE OF 

### 18:

D ANE 

### C OUNTY 

### D EPARTMENT OF 

### H UMAN 

### S ERVICES



### ,

P ETITIONER



### - R ESPONDENT



### ,

V



### .

J. R.,

R ESPONDENT



### - A PPELLANT



### . 

### FILED

January 1 5 , 2020

Sheila T. Reiff

Clerk of Court of Appeals



### N O



### . 2019AP821

I N RE THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO 

### J. T.,

A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 

### 18:

D ANE 

### C OUNTY 

### D EPARTMENT OF 

### H UMAN 

### S ERVICES



### ,

P ETITIONER



### - R ESPONDENT



### ,

V



### .

J. R.,

R ESPONDENT



### - A PPELLANT



### .

ERRATA SHEETNos. 2019AP820

2019AP821

2 Sheila T. Reiff

Clerk of Court of Appeals

P.O. Box 1688

Madison, WI 53701

- 1688

Jenny Andrews, Sarah Motiff

Court of Appeals

Ten East Doty Street, Suite 700

Madison, WI 53703

Court of Appeals District I

330 East Kilbourn Avenue, Suite 1020

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202

- 3161

Court of Appeals District II

2727 N. Grandview Blvd.

Waukesha, WI 53188

- 1672

Court of Appeals District III

2100 Stewart Ave., Suite 310

Wausau, WI 5440 1 Court of Appeals District IV

Ten East Doty Street, Suite 700

Madison, WI 53703

Hon. Everett Mitchell

215 S. Hamilton St.

Madison, WI 53703

Colleen Marion

Assistant State Public Defender

P.O. Box 7862

Madison, WI 53707

- 7862

Eve M. Dorman

Dane County Corp oration Counsel

210 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. , #419

Madison, WI 53703

- 3345

Evelyn J. Mazack

P.O. Box 930244

Verona, WI 53593



### PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that corrections were made to the above

captioned opinion (f

ootnot e 11 on page 23 has been removed, and the publication

recommendation on page 25 has been changed), which was released on

November 27, 2019 . A corrected electronic version in its entirety is available on

the court's website at www.wicourts.gov.Nos. 2019AP820

2019AP821

3
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52025-52026]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21156]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES

[Public Notice: 2012-0446]

 Application for Final Commitment for a Long-term Loan or 
Financial Guarantee in Excess of $100 million

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the United States.

ACTION: Notice of 25 day comment period regarding an application for 
final commitment for a long-term loan or financial guarantee in excess 
of $100 million.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reason for Notice: This Notice is to inform the public, in 
accordance with Section 3(c)(10) of the Charter of the Export-Import 
Bank of the United States (``Ex-Im Bank''), that Ex-Im Bank has 
received an application for final commitment for a long-term loan or 
financial guarantee in excess of $100 million (as calculated in 
accordance with Section 3(c)(10) of the Charter).
    Comments received within the comment period specified below will be 
presented to the Ex-Im Bank Board of Directors prior to final action on 
this Transaction.
    Reference: AP087112XX.
    Purpose and Use:
    Brief description of the purpose of the transaction:
    To support the export of commercial aircraft to Dubai.
    Brief non-proprietary description of the anticipated use of the 
items being exported:
    Aircraft to be exported to Dubai for use in commercial passenger 
air service between the UAE and other countries.
    To the extent that Ex-Im Bank is reasonably aware, the item(s) 
being

[[Page 52026]]

exported are not expected to produce exports or provide services in 
competition with the exportation of goods or provision of services by a 
United States industry.
    Parties:

Principal Supplier: The Boeing Company
Obligor: Dubai Aviation Corporation trading as flydubai
Guarantor(s): N/A

    Description of Items Being Exported: Boeing 737 aircraft.
    Information on Decision: Information on the final decision for this 
transaction will be available in the ``Summary Minutes of Meetings of 
Board of Directors'' on http://www.exim.gov/articles.cfm/board%20minute.
    Confidential Information: Please note that this notice does not 
include confidential or proprietary business information; information 
which, if disclosed, would violate the Trade Secrets Act; or 
information which would jeopardize jobs in the United States by 
supplying information that competitors could use to compete with 
companies in the United States.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 24, 2012 to be 
assured of consideration before final consideration of the transaction 
by the Board of Directors of Ex-Im Bank.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted through WWW.REGULATIONS.GOV.

Kathryn Hoff-Patrinos,
Deputy General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2012-21156 Filed 8-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
```
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATE 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 Quarterly Report of North Central Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jane M. Funk, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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(a) or 78o(d)) and2)
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 covered by the Report.May 11, 2011
/s/ Jane M. FunkDated
Jane M. FunkChief Financial Officer and Treasurer
**Exhibit 32.1**

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**

In connection withthe annual report on Form 10-K/A of Liberate Technologies for the yearended May 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof, (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers ofLiberate Technologies certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,to his respective knowledge:

1.     The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.     The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Liberate Technologies.
|                               | /s/ DAVID LOCKWOOD                                      |
|-------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                          | David Lockwood                                          |
| Date: September 28, 2005 | *Chief Executive Officer*                               |
|                          | /s/ GREGORY S. WOOD                                     |
|                          | Gregory S. Wood                                         |
| Date: September 28, 2005 | *Executive Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer* |

 

This certificationaccompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, be deemed filed by Liberate Technologies for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

----
Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION OF CFO

STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, Gregory C. Talbott is the Executive Vice
President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of PFF Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company").

This statement is being furnished in connection with the
filing by the Company of the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report").

By execution of this statement, I certify 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(a) 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 as of the dates and for the periods covered by the
          Report.

This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to
the Report so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the
Report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.
It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

|February 11, 2003 |  | /s/ Gregory C. Talbott
|----------------- |  | ----------------------
|Dated             |  | Gregory C. Talbott
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. William MARKS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 112, Docket 30498.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Oct. 18, 1966.

Decided Nov. 9, 1966.

Otto G. Obermaier, New York City (Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty., for the Southern District of New York, Michael W. Mitchell, Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.

Maurice Edelbaum, New York City, for appellant.

Before WATERMAN, HAYS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted by jury verdict on two counts of bribing employees of the Internal Revenue Service and on two counts of aiding and abetting these employees in violating 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a) (2).

Appellant contends that the federal rule permitting conviction on the uncorroborated testimony of accomplices is not one of invariable application, but that it is the “better practice” to require corroboration and that the circumstances of the present case call for the use of this “better practice.” An identical contention was advanced in United States v. Armone, 363 F.2d 385, 402 (2d Cir. 1966) and was rejected by this court in an opinion which cited United States v. Kelly, 349 F.2d 720 (2d Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 947, 86 S.Ct. 1467, 16 L.Ed.2d 544 (1966). In the present case the trial judge instructed the jury that the government’s witnesses were accomplices and that:

> “You must, therefore, scrutinize their testimony with special care and act upon it with caution.”

Appellant also argues that his trial was unfair because the court pre*567vented the defense from cross-examining accomplice witnesses as to other occasions on which they had accepted bribes. Defendant was permitted to bring out that the government’s witnesses had been convicted for accepting bribes, that they had not yet been sentenced and that they were testifying in the hope of avoiding jail sentences. It was well within the trial judge’s discretion to limit further cross-examination on the issue of credibility. United States v. Irwin, 354 F.2d 192 (2d Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 967, 86 S.Ct. 1272, 16 L.Ed.2d 308 (1966).

Affirmed.
#### TURNBULL GROUP, LLC, d/b/a Turnbull Automotive, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CARFAX, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-2144

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 15, 2017

Decided: May 23, 2017

*227Bryan % Hale, GOFORTH HALE LLC, Birmingham, Alabama, for Appellant. Christopher Landau, P.C., Gregg F. LoCascio, P.C., Christa Laser, KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Turnbull Group, LLC, appeals the district court’s order dismissing its class action complaint against Carfax, Inc., for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Turnbull Grp., LLC v. Carfax, Inc.,*No. 1:16-cv-00646-AJT-IDD (E.D. Va. Sept. 2, 2016). We grant Carfax’s motion to submit on the briefs and 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.

*AFFIRMED*
#### LEAUMA, Plaintiff v. VEE, Defendant

No. 31-1918

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division [Land: “Tausaga”]

July 3, 1921

A. M. NOBLE, *Associate Judge of the High Court*

JUDGMENT

This cause coming on to be heard before A. M. Noble, Associate Judge of the High Court, and being heard and it appearing to the court that the matters in controversy had been amicably settled between the parties plaintiff and defendant and it is therefore ordered, considered and adjudged by the court that this action be dismissed, by and with the consent of the parties plaintiff and defendant, and that Yee is the owner and entitled to the possession of the land Tausaga.

It is further ordered, considered and adjudged by the court that the Plaintiff pay the cost of the action $10.00.

Given under my hand and seal of the High Court of American Samoa, this 3rd day of July, 1921.