alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**Certification Pursuant to**

**18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

**(as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of**

**the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002)**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of IDT Corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Bill Pereira, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

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 results of operations of the Company. 

Date: March 17, 2009 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, 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 IDT Corporation and will be retained by IDTCorporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                       3,182,607
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               31,731,362
<ALLOWANCES>                                   274,175
<INVENTORY>                                    384,140
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            40,883,539
<PP&E>                                      33,869,783
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,010,094
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             137,790,369
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,875,055
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       242,021
<OTHER-SE>                                  54,630,840
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               137,790,369
<SALES>                                     34,603,684
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            34,603,684
<CGS>                                       23,942,509
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               23,942,509
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,865,380
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,900,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             626,572
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,269,223
<INCOME-TAX>                                   867,382
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            401,841
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   401,841
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED May 31, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40987 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus TERRY A. SIMPSON, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:03-CR-189-RAS-ALL

-------------------- Before GARWOOD, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Terry A. Simpson appeals his sentence following his guiltyplea conviction to receipt of child pornography. He renews his claim that the district court erred by adjusting his offense level by four levels under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(3) because the factual finding supporting the adjustment was made by the district court and was not made by a jury or admitted by him, thus violating the Fifth and Sixth Amendments under Blakely v. Washington , 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), and United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). The Government concedes that Simpson’sNo. 04-40987 -2- sentence is erroneous after Booker , that it cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the district court would have imposed the same sentence if it knew that the guidelines were only discretionary, and that the case should be remanded for resentencing. Simpson’s sentence is thus vacated and the case is remanded for resentencing. United States v. Akpan , ___ F.3d ___, No. 03-20875, 2005 WL 852416 at *11-12 (5th Cir. Apr. 14, 2005).
VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PUBLIC MEETING ON THE TEST PROCEDURE NOPR FOR BATTERY CHARGERS AND EXTERNAL POWER SUPPLIES

U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW. Washington, DC 20585 Room 8 E

- 089 May 7, 2010



### Purpose The Department is holding this public meeting to discuss the test procedure notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR). DOE will seek comment on several aspects of this proposal.


### Agenda **9:00**

**– 9:05 am**  **Welcome** Victor Petrolati

**9:05**

**– 9:10 am**  **Introduction and Agenda Review** Victor Petrolati

**9:10**

**– 9:40 am**  **Stakeholder Presentations**

**9:40**

**– 9:55 am**  **Legal Authority and Background** Victor Petrolati

**9:55**

**– 10:55 am**  **BC Active Mode Test Procedure** Mateusz Malinowski, Navigant Consulting

**10:55**

**– 11:10 am**  **Break**

**11:10 am**

**– 12:10**  **pm BC Active Mode Test Procedure (cont.)**  Michael Vladimer , Navigant Consulting

**12:10**

**– 12:20 pm**  **BC and EPS Standby and Off Mode Test Procedures** Mateusz Malinowski, Navigant Consulting

**12:20**

**– 12:30 pm**  **Single**

**- Voltage EPS**  **Active Mode Test Procedure**  Mateusz Malinowski, Navigant Consulting

**12:30**

**– 12:40 pm**  **Multiple**

**- Voltage EPS**  **Active Mode Test Procedure**  Mateusz Malinowski, Navigant Consulting

**12:40**

**– 12:50 pm**  Final Comments and Adjourn Victor Petrolati
Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, L.L.P. 

Attorneys and Counselors 

One Riverwa One Riverway | Suite 1400 | Houston, TX 77056 | (713) 403-8210 | Fax: (713) 403-8299 y | Suite 1400 | Houston, TX 77056 | (713) 403-8210 | Fax: (713) 403-8299

Andrew L. Johnson 

Direct Dial: (713) 403-8205 

ajohnson@thompsoncoe.com

Austin 

Dallas 

Houston 

Los Angeles 

Saint Paul 

December 10, 2015 

Christopher A. Prine, Clerk 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

301 Fannin, Suite 245 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Re: No. 14-14-00859-CV; American Risk Insurance Company, Inc. v. Veronica 

Serpikova; In the Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District of Texas, Houston 

 Trial Court No.: 2013-14955 

Dear Mr. Prine: 

This correspondence is to advise the Court and Appellee that Andrew L. Johnson will 

present oral argument on behalf of Appellant American Risk Insurance on Tuesday, December 

15, 2015. This is a change from Appellant’s earlier letter indicating that Kevin F. Risley will 

present oral argument. 

Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ Andrew L. Johnson 

Andrew L. Johnson 

ACCEPTED

14-14-00859-CV

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

12/10/2015 1:19:35 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 12/10/2015 1:19:35 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
# EUR-Lex - 32002D0355 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002D0355

**2002/355/Euratom: Council Decision of 7 May 2002 on extension of the joint-undertaking status of Hochtemperatur-Kernkraftwerk GmbH (HKG) **

*
Official Journal L 123 , 09/05/2002 P. 0053 - 0053 *

Council Decision

of 7 May 2002

on extension of the joint-undertaking status of Hochtemperatur-Kernkraftwerk GmbH (HKG)

(2002/355/Euratom)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 49 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

(1) By Decision 74/295/Euratom(1), the Council established Hochtemperatur-Kernkraftwerk GmbH (hereinafter referred to as "HKG") as a joint undertaking for a period of 25 years as from 1 January 1974.

(2) The objectives of HKG were to construct, equip and operate a nuclear power station with a capacity of approximately 300 MWe at Uentrop (Unna district) in the Federal Republic of Germany.

(3) After being in operation from 1987 to 1988, the nuclear power station was finally shut down on 1 September 1989 as a result of technical and economic difficulties.

(4) Since that date the objective of HKG has been to implement a programme for decommissioning the nuclear power station up to the safe enclosure stage and, thereafter, to carry out a programme of surveillance of the enclosed nuclear installations.

(5) By Decision 92/547/Euratom of 16 November 1992 extending the status of Kernkraftwerklingen GmbH as a joint undertaking(2), the Council recognised that there was no equivalent to these programmes in the Community, that implementation thereof was important and that they provided useful experience for the nuclear industry and the future development of nuclear energy in the Community.

(6) In order to achieve its objective, HKG requested extension of its joint-undertaking status with effect from 1 January 1999.

(7) Extension of its joint-undertaking status should enable HKG to complete its decommissioning and surveillance programmes, notably by lightening the financial burden.

(8) Arrangements for financing HKG's activities have been agreed between the Federal Republic of Germany, the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia, HKG and its members for the period up to 31 December 2009.

(9) HKG's joint-undertaking status should therefore be extended for the same period,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

1. The joint-undertaking status, within the meaning of the Treaty, granted to Hochtemperatur-Kernkraftwerk GmbH (HKG) is hereby extended for eleven years with effect from 1 January 1999.

2. The objective of HKG shall be to implement a programme for decommissioning the nuclear power station located at Uentrop (Unna district) in the Federal Republic of Germany, up to the safe enclosure stage and, thereafter, to carry out a programme of surveillance of the enclosed nuclear installations.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States and to HKG.

Done at Brussels, 7 May 2002.

For the Council

The President

R. De Rato Y Figaredo

(1) OJ L 165, 20.6.1974, p. 7.

(2) OJ L 352, 2.12.1992, p. 9.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          10,106
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,450
<ALLOWANCES>                                       346
<INVENTORY>                                      1,351
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,997
<PP&E>                                           4,457
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,972
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,964
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,322
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           37,779
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (24,137)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,964
<SALES>                                          3,103
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,103
<CGS>                                            1,838
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,838
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,999
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 166
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,567)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         9
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,576)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,576)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.32)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 14044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05098]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Open RF Association, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 7, 2022 pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Open RF Association, Inc. filed 
written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the 
Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Unisoc (Shanghai) 
Technologies Co., Ltd, Shanghai, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; and 
SmartDV Technologies, Bangalore, INDIA have been added as parties to 
this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Open RF Association, Inc. intends to 
file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in 
membership.
    On February 21, 2020, Open RF Association, Inc. filed its original 
notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of 
Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 
6(b) of the Act on March 11, 2020 (85 FR 14247).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on May 25, 
2021. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on July 26, 2021 (86 FR 40078).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-05098 Filed 3-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
#### Michael Anthony DAVIS, Petitioner-Appellant v. Rodney W. CHANDLER, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution Fort Worth, Respondent-Appellee

No. 16-10337 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 19, 2017

*878Michael Anthony Davis, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Michael Anthony Davis, federal prisoner # 33896-177, appeals the district court’s sanction order barring him from filing the instant 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he challenged his 2005 convictions and sentences for conspiring to possess and distribute cocaine base and distributing cocaine base. The district court issued numerous sanction warnings and, in 2014, imposed a $250 sanction and ordered that if Davis filed any further pleadings challenging his convictions and sentences without providing proof that he paid the monetary sanction, the clerk would docket the pleadings for administrative purposes only and the submissions would be closed under authority of the court’s order. In February 2016, Davis filed in the district court yet another § 2241 petition, which was closed pursuant to the sanction order. The district court granted Davis leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

Given Davis’s extensive history of filing frivolous or repetitive pleadings and given that he received adequate notice that he would be subjected to sanctions, the district court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing the sanction order. *See Gelabert v. Lynaugh,*894 F.2d 746, 747-78 (5th Cir. 1990); *Mendoza v. Lynaugh,*989 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

In addition to failing to heed the district court’s warnings, Davis has failed to heed this court’s warning against filing frivolous or repetitive pleadings. *See Davis v. Chandler,*593 Fed.Appx. 387 (5th Cir. 2015). He is therefore ORDERED to pay a monetary SANCTION of $250 to the clerk of this court. This monetary sanction must be paid in addition to, and not in lieu of, any monetary sanctions imposed by the district court. Davis is BARRED from filing any pleading challenging his convictions or sentences in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction until the sanction is paid in full unless he first obtains leave of the court in which he seeks to file his pleading. He is WARNED that any future frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings will subject him to additional and progressively more severe sanctions. Davis is directed to review all pending matters and move to dismiss any that are frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive.

*

 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.
#### Favaz UR-REHMAN, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent

No. 16-60770 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 6, 2017

Leah Spivey, Ware Immigration, Me-tairie, LA, for Petitioner

Elizabeth Karen Fitzgerald-Sambou, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/OIL, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Favaz Ur-Rehman petitions for review of the dismissal of his appeal by the Board' of Immigration Appeals (BIA) following the denial by the Immigration Judge of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review the denial of relief for substantial evidence. *Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales,*447 F.3d 343, 347 (5th Cir. 2006).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Ur-Rehman was not entitled to asylum or withholding of removal. The record does not compel the conclusion that the harm he suffered, the destruction of his business and threats to harm him and his family, amounted to persecution. *See Tamara-Gomez,*447 F.3d at 347-48; *Eduard v. Ashcroft,*379 F.3d 182, 187 (5th Cir. 2004). The record also does not compel the conclusion that he has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground because he previously engaged in conduct that the Taliban perceived to be anti-Islamic. *See Orellana-Monson v. Holder,*685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012); *Tamara-Gomez,*447 F.3d at 347-49; *Zhao v. Gonzales,*404 F.3d 295, 307 (5th Cir. 2005). We do not consider his alternative argument that he established a pattern or practice of persecution of similarly situated persons and his inclusion in and identification with that group, *see Zhao,*404 F.3d at 307, because this portion of his brief fails to meaningfully comply with the appellate briefing requirements, *see*Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). We lack jurisdiction to consider Ur-Rehman’s unex-hausted argument that the BIA erred in failing to actually decide whether he is a member of a particular social group; in any event, the BIA’s determination to assume that he is for the sake of argument inured to Ur-Rehman’s benefit. *See Omari v. Holder,*562 F.3d 314, 319-21 (5th Cir. 2009).

Ur-Rehman again fails to comply with the appellate briefing requirements in the portion of his brief regarding the denial of CAT relief. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). Moreover, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Ur-Rehman failed to establish that he will be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the Pakistan Gov-*366ernraent. *See Tamara-Gomez,*447 F.3d at 347, 350-51.

Ur-Rehman’s petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction.

*

 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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS GEOVANNI SAMAYOA

- DELA ROSA, Petitioner,

v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER , Acting Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 15

- 73041 Agency No. A095

- 755

- 173

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 27, 2018 ** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Carlos Geovanni Samayoa

- Dela Rosa, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his

a pplication for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

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

- 3.

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

# FILED

DEC 3 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 73041

Against Torture (“CAT”). We have j urisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings , applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinat ions created by the REAL ID
Act. Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039

- 40 (9th Cir. 2010 )

. We deny the petition for review. Samayoa

- Dela Rosa does not challenge the agency’s dispositive conclusion that his asylum application was untimely and that he failed to establish any changed or extraordinary circumstances t o excuse the untimely filing

. See
Martinez

- Serrano v. INS , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259

- 60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, his asylum claim fails. Substantial evidence supports the agency ’s ad verse credibility determin ation based on inconsistencies between Samayoa

- Dela Rosa ’s testimony and declaration as to the events of his first interaction with gang members, who caused Samayoa

Dela Rosa’s motorcycle accident , the identity of his grandfather’s murderer, and based on t he omission of Samayoa

- Dela Rosa ’s cousin’s murder from his declaration

. See Shrestha , 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). In this case, in the absence of credible3 15

- 73041

testimony, Samayoa

- Dela Ros a’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft , 348 F.3 d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003)

. Finally, Samayoa

- Dela Rosa ’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and Samayoa

- Dela Rosa does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Guatemala

. See id . at 1156

- 57. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED .