alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SHUN CHEN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-60012 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 24, 2017

David M. Haghighi, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner

*356Aimee Joy Carmichael, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Shun Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of a decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and ordering his removal. Chen maintains that his asylum application was timely filed and that the adverse credibility determination is not supported by substantial evidence.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that Chen’s asylum application was untimely, because that determination was based solely on findings of fact, and Chen raises no constitutional or legal challenge to that determination. *See Zhu v.*Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 594-95 (5th Cir. 2007). We do, however, retain jurisdiction to review Chen’s challenge to the denial of withholding of removal and relief under the CAT based on the adverse credibility finding.

An IJ’s credibility decision is entitled to deference “unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” *Wang v. Holder,*569 F.3d 531, 538 (5th Cir. 2009). Even if there could be reasonable explanations for some' of the discrepancies noted by the IJ, it is not plain, in light of the record as a whole, that no reasonable factfinder could make an adverse credibility ruling. *See id.*As the BIA concluded, the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was based on numerous inconsistencies and Chen’s demeanor and was supported “by specific and cogent reasons.” *See id.*at 537 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Accordingly, the petition for review of the denial of asylum is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. The petition for review of the denial of withholding of removal and protection under the CAT is DENIED.

*

 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.
```

[Federal Register: September 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 177)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 55698]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14se10-14]                         

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 4

RIN 3038-AC46

 
Commodity Pool Operations: Relief From Compliance With Certain 
Disclosure, Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Registered 
CPOs of Commodity Pools Listed for Trading on a National Securities 
Exchange; CPO Registration Exemption for Certain Independent Directors 
or Trustees of These Commodity Pools; Correction

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects a missing e-mail address in a proposed 
rule published in the Federal Register of September 9, 2010, regarding 
relief from certain disclosure, reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements that Commission staff previously has issued on a case-by-
case basis to commodity pool operators (CPOs).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David A. Stawick, 202-418-5071.

Correction

    In proposed rule FR Doc. 2010-22395, beginning on page 54794 in the 
issue of September 9, 2010, make the following correction. In the 
ADDRESSES section, add the e-mail address etfcpoexemptcomment@cftc.gov 
in the place of ``[email address TBD]''.

    Dated: September 9, 2010.
David A. Stawick,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-22906 Filed 9-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
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 Omni Medical Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending March 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Douglas Davis, President and Treasurer 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; 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: 7/14/2005                          /s/Douglas Davis
     ----------                          ---------------------
                                         Douglas Davis
                                         President, Treasurer and director
#### The Inhabitants of Scituate *versus*The Inhabitants of Hanover.

A legitimate child having a settlement by its father, cannot acquire the settlement of its mother.

Assumpsit to recover expenses incurred in supporting Sarah S. Clapp, a pauper.

The parties agreed that the pauper was the legitimate daughter of Michael Clapp ; that she never gained a settlement in her own right; that Michael gained a settlement in Hanover, which continued until his decease in 1803 ; that after his decease, his widow, the mother of the pauper, removed to Scitu*146ate and there gained a settlement in her own right during the minority of the pauper, who removed with her mother.

*Oct.*21*st.*

*Oct.*23d.

If the pauper’s settlement was still in Hanover, the defendants were to be defaulted ; if otherwise, the plaintiffs were to be nonsuit.

*W. Baylies,*for the plaintiffs,

referred to *St.*1793, c. 34 ; *Plymouth*v. Freetown, 1 Pick. 197.

*Beal, contra,*

cited *Freetown*v. *Taunton,*16 Mass. R. 52, suggesting as a distinction, that in the present case the mother gained a settlement in her own right.

*Per Curiam.*

It is clearly the intention of the statute of 1793, c. 34, [Revised Stat. c. 45, § 1,] that a legitimate child having a settlement by its father shall not acquire the settlement of its mother.

*Defendants defaulted.*
**EXHIBIT 31.02**

**RULE13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Barbra E. Kocsis, Chief Financial Officer of Merrill LynchAlternative Investments LLC, the general partner of ML JWH StrategicAllocation Fund L.P, certify that:

1.               I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-Q of ML JWH Strategic Allocation Fund L.P.;

2. Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

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

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)  Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

5. The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

a.) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b) Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: May 15, 2007
| By                                            | /s/ BARBRA E.  KOCSIS |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|-----------------------|--------|
| Barbra E. Kocsis                              |
| Chief Financial  Officer                      |
| (Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet and statement of operations of the company as of and for the nine months
ended December 31, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety be referenced to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         650,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,323,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   948,000
<INVENTORY>                                    709,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,673,000
<PP&E>                                       2,954,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,074,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,242,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,314,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        66,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,737,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,242,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,254,000
<CGS>                                        5,569,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,676,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,813,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             311,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,546,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (730,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,816,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,816,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.74)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of drugstore.com, inc. (the “Company”)for the period ending December 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thère du Pont, Chief Financial Officer 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 therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

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

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been providedto drugstore.com, inc. and will be retained by drugstore.com, inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

March 13, 2008
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.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-965]
 AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
 ACTION: Notice of application.
 SUMMARY: Lyndra Therapeutics has applied to be registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to 
                        **Supplemental Information**
                         listed below for further drug information.
 DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before March 28, 2022. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before March 28, 2022.
 ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for a hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for a hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/OALJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on January 13, 2022, Lyndra Therapeutics, 65 Grove Street, Suite 301, Watertown, Massachusetts 02472, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s): Controlled substance
Drug
                             code
ScheduleMethadone
9250
II
 The company plans to develop the formulation and process, and then manufacture the finished oral dosage form for use in preclinical and human clinical trials and analysis. No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration. Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale. Matthew J. Strait, Deputy Assistant Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2022-04061 Filed 2-24-22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
---

Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 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, 2013
(the Report), I, Dan Amadori, Chief Financial 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 19, 2014 | /s/
      Dan Amadori        
|----------------------- | -----------------------------
|                        | Dan Amadori                  
|                        | Chief Financial Officer      
|                        | (Principal financial officer)

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
COTELLIGENT,  INC. CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE
30,  2000 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0001004963
<NAME>                                         COTELLIGENT, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         26420
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  23083
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1652
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               50076
<PP&E>                                         15558
<DEPRECIATION>                                 7475
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 104827
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          18808
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       153
<OTHER-SE>                                     85815
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   104827
<SALES>                                        46228
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               46228
<CGS>                                          31404
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  57399
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (42)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             972
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (12101)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4115)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7986)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 6159
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1827)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.12)



</TABLE>
#### Sarabjit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-70211

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 19, 2017

Jaspreet Singh, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioner

OIL, Virginia Lum, Attorney, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Sarabjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the *445BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, *Najmabadi v. Holder,*597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s second motion to reopen, where Singh filed it more than eight years after the BIA’s final order, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where Singh failed to demonstrate changed country conditions in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the limitations imposed on filing a motion to reopen, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), *Najmabadi,*597 F.3d at 987-90 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening); *see also Toufighi v. Mukasey,*538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence was immaterial in light of prior adverse credibility determination).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Robert C. JACOBSEN; Carol S. Jacobsen, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15-71608

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 25, 2017

Robert C. Jacobsen, Pro Se

Carol S. Jacobsen, Pro Se

Curtis Clarence Pett, Esquire, Richard Farber, Esquire, Supervisory Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Robert C. and Carol S. Jacobsen appeal pro se from the Tax Court’s determination following a trial concerning an income tax deficiency and penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6662(a) for tax year 2010. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We affirm.

The Jacobsens have waived their appeal of the Tax Court’s determination of the tax deficiency by failing to address in their opening brief how the Tax Court erred in reaching its conclusions. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); *see also Greenwood v. FAA,*28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim[.]”).

AFFIRMED.

**

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