alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,635
<SECURITIES>                                    17,234
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,254
<ALLOWANCES>                                       300
<INVENTORY>                                      1,999
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,428
<PP&E>                                           3,202
<DEPRECIATION>                                     976
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  40,853
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,491
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            72
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,290
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    40,853
<SALES>                                          7,757
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,757
<CGS>                                            2,824
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,306
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,902
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,074
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,828 
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,828
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27
        

</TABLE>
#### Bayron CABRERA-MORALES, AKA Bayron Danilo Cabrera Morales, AKA Bayron Danilo Cabrera, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-73656

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2017*

Filed July 17, 2017

Bayron Cabrera-Morales, Pro Se

*687Craig Alan Newell, Jr., Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Offiee of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Bayron Cabrera-Morales, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252, We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. *Lopez-Cardona v. Holder,*662 F.3d 1110, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

We do not consider the materials petitioner references in his opening brief or filed separately (Docket Entry No. 21) that are not part of the administrative record. *See Fisher v. INS,*79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that, even if credible, Cabrera-Morales faded to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Guatemala. *See Lopez-Cardona,*662 F.3d at 1114.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Cabrera-Morales’s contentions regarding remov-ability, asylum, and procedural due process that he presents for the first time in his opening brief. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust claim in administrative proceedings below).

Finally, Cabrera-Morales’s challenge to the agency’s bond determination is not properly before us. *See Leonardo v. Crawford,*646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth procedure for challenging bond determinations). Thus, we dismiss Cabrera-Morales’ motion to appeal the bond decision (Docket Entry No. 25) as outside the scope of Cabrera-Morales’ petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

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

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 106 (Tuesday, June 3, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 31901]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12798]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0696; FRL-9911-72-OAR]
RIN 2060-5689

Performance Specification 18--Specifications and Test Procedures 
for Gaseous HCl Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary 
Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing that 
the period for providing public comments on the May 14, 2014, proposed 
``Performance Specification 18--Specifications and Test Procedures for 
Gaseous HCl Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary 
Sources'' is being extended by 30 days.

DATES: The public comment period for the proposed rule published May 
14, 2014 (79 FR 27690) is being extended by 30 days to July 13, 2014, 
in order to provide the public additional time to submit comments and 
supporting information.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted to 
the EPA electronically, by mail, by facsimile or through hand delivery/
courier. Please refer to the proposal (79 FR 27690) for the addresses 
and detailed instructions.
    Docket. Publicly available documents relevant to this action are 
available for public inspection either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading 
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding legal holidays. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying. 
The EPA has established the official public docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-
0696.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Candace Sorrell, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division (AQAD), 
Measurement Technology Group, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709; telephone number: (919) 
541-1064; fax number: (919) 541-0516; email address: 
sorrell.candace@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comment Period

    The EPA is extending the public comment period for an additional 30 
days. The public comment period will end on July 13, 2014, rather than 
June 13, 2014. This will ensure that the public has sufficient time to 
review and comment on all of the information available, including the 
proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Continuous emission monitoring systems, Hydrogen 
chloride, Performance specifications, Test methods and procedures.

    Dated: May 27, 2014.
Mary Henigin,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2014-12798 Filed 6-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
#### Isidro Zaraate VALENTE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank L. PERRY, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6378

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 21, 2017.

Decided: August 17, 2017

Isidro Zaraate Valente, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Isidro Zaraate Valente seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability -will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

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

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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          80,594
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,253
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,583
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,677
<PP&E>                                         297,232
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 387,670
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           86,801
<BONDS>                                        265,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   387,670
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               462,455
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  324,393
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,962
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 55,505
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             55,505
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    332
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    55,173
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 2454

_____________________________
T HERALL A UTHUR W ILLIAMS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. John L. Miller , Judge

. January 30, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R OBERTS , W ETHERELL , and M AKAR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Jasmine Quintera Russell, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant ; and Therall Williams, p ro se , Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody , Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
#### Sheri DANIEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Timothy J. SLOAN, CEO & President (2016-present) of Wells Fargo & Company, in his official capacity and in his individual capacity; John Gerard Stumpf, Chairman & CEO (2004-2016) of Wells Fargo & Company, in his official capacity and in his individual capacity; Avid Modjtabai, Sr. Exec. VP, Consumer Lending of Wells Fargo & Company, in her official capacity and in her individual capacity; Michael J. Heid, President & CEO (2004-2015) of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, in his official capacity and in his individual capacity; Franklin Codel, President & CEO (2015-present) of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, in his official capacity and in his individual capacity; Nancy Sorensen, Executive Mortgage Specialist Customer Care and Recovery Group Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, in her official capacity and in her individual capacity; Terry McAuliffe, Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, in his official capacity and in his individual capacity; Mark R. Herring, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, in his official capacity and in his individual capacity; Donald W. Lemons, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, in his official capacity and in his individual capacity; Bruce D. White, Chief Judge of the Fairfax County Circuit Court Commonwealth of Virginia, in his official capacity and in his individual capacity; Robert J. Smith; Judge Jan L. Brodie, Judge of the Fairfax County Circuit Court, in her official capacity and in her individual capacity; Alfred D. Swersky, Judge, Judge (retired, substitute) in the Fairfax County Circuit Court, in his official capacity and in his individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1524

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 17, 2017

Decided: August 21, 2017

Sheri Daniel, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Sanborn Owen, BRIGLIAHUNDLEY, PC, Tysons Corner, Virginia; Nancy Hull Davidson, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

*730Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sheri Daniel appeals the district court’s orders dismissing her civil action and denying her motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Daniel v. Sloan,*No. 1:16-cv-01360-CMH-JFA (E.D. Va., Mar. 10 & 22, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
**EXHIBIT 13.2****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 Annual Report of Micromem Technologies Inc. (the “Company”) on Form20-F for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dan Amadori, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, based on my knowledge, that:     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.   February 28, 2006 /s/ Dan Amadori*     Dan Amadori  Chief Financial Officer  (Principal financial officer) * A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided tous and will be retained by us and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.
EXHIBIT 35.3

                    SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)

                           HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL, LLC

                RASC SERIES 2006-KS9 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of Homecomings  Financial,  LLC, as
servicer (the "Servicer") pursuant to the applicable  servicing agreement,  does
hereby certify that:

1. A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during  the  period  covered  by the
Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer's performance under the
applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing agreement in all material
respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:   /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      Name: Anthony N. Renzi
      Title: Managing Director
SPAR Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries








EXHIBIT 32.1




Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to




Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the three-month period ended March 31, 2010 (this "report"), of SPAR Group, Inc. (the "registrant"), the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his 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 registrant.







/s/ Gary S. Raymond

Gary S. Raymond

President and Chief Executive Officer



May 13, 2010





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SPAR Group, Inc. and will be retained by SPAR Group, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.








Ex-3
`Exhibit 32.2

                           NATIONAL AUTO CREDIT, INC.
                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I, Robert V. Cuddihy, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of National Auto Credit,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Registrant"), in connection with the
Registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), do hereby represent, warrant and certify 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
Registrant.


/s/ Robert V. Cuddihy, Jr.
--------------------------------------------
Name: Robert V. Cuddihy, Jr.
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date:  September 10, 2004


















A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to National Auto Credit, Inc. and
will be retained by National Auto Credit, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.`
#### Alexander’s Department Stores, Inc., Respondent, *v.*Ohrbach’s, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Submitted November 15, 1943;

decided November 19, 1943.

*Edward R. Finch, J. Norman Lewis, Edward Kurland*and *Leo*</. *Bondy*for motion.

*Edward Lasansky, Isidor J. Kresel*and *Wm. Peyton Marin*opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed with costs, and ten dollars costs of motion.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VIRGINIA DEL CARMEN RIVERA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-73366

Agency No. A072-523-249

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 18, 2014** 

Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Virginia del Carmen Rivera, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

FILED

FEB 24 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-

85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that, even if credible, Rivera

failed to establish a nexus between any past or future harm in El Salvador and one

of the protected grounds. See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1094-95 (9th

Cir. 2002) (evidence did not compel finding that Guatemalan guerillas attacked

family on account of imputed political opinion or membership in a particular social

group); Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 865 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Asylum generally is

not available to victims of civil strife, unless they are singled out on account of a

protected ground.”). Accordingly, Rivera’s asylum claim fails.

Because Rivera failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, her

claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190. 

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Rivera failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured with the consent

or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Silaya v.

Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 12-73366