alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### 201**4**

**- 201**  **5 F**  **ederal S** **tudent A** **id Application Commenters Listing** 

The following is a listing of the individuals or organizations th at provided comments on the 201 4

- 2015 Free Application for Federal Student Aid

. Comments were collected May 6, 2013 thru July 6, 201 3

. A summary of the comments received is provided separately.

1) Dr. Mary O'Reilly, Josephinum Academy 2) Tina Johann, Herzing University 3) G. Michael Johnson, Pacific University 4) Melisa Ibanez, University of Pittsburgh at Bradford 5) Raymond Gurrola, Central New Mexico Community College 6) Karen Koenig

- Griffin, East Central College 7) Lynn Dubay, University of Wisconsin System 8) Lauren Asher, The In stitute for College Access and Success 9) Cynthia Heaton, Pennsylvania State University 10) Pamela Palermo, Northwestern Michigan College 11) Anthony Tanking, Benedictine College 12) Elizabeth Alaniz, California State University 13) Christopher Shultz, University of Califo rnia, Irvine 14) Vicki Shipley, National Council of Higher Education Resources 15) Deborah Faust, Lake Superior State University 16) Jana Haile, Boston University 17) Nancy Segal, ETS 18) Tori Weigant, West Chester University 19) Susan Johnson, Wisconsin Association of Student Fi nancial Aid Administrators 20) Karen McCarthy, NASFAA 21) Emily Hecht

- McGowan, Family Equality Council 22) Susan Degen, National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs
Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Certification of Chief Executive Officer

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pure Bioscience (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael L. Krall, Chief Executive Officer 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 results of operations of the
Company.

June 14, 2004                    /s/ Michael L. Krall
-------------------              -----------------------------------
                                 Michael L. Krall
                                 Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roberto Carlos LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10429

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

NOVEMBER 20, 2017

Karla Delord, Assistant U.S., USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Nancy Hinchcliffe, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Roberto Carlos Lopez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 84-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2), and 2256. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Lopez contends that at sentencing, the district court proeedurally erred by referring to 20,000 victims, rather than 20,000 images, and by failing to explain why it imposed a sentence greater than the sentences imposed in unrelated cases. We review for plain error, *see United States v. Valencias-Barragan,*608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court understood that Lopez possessed over 20,000 images and simply misspoke when it referred to 20,000 victims. Moreover, the district court adequately explained the sentence. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). It was not required to address each sentencing disparity alleged by Lopez. *See United States v. Treadwell,*593 F.3d 990, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010).

Lopez also argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the lower sentences recommended by the probation office and by the government, and in light of the alleged disparity between his sentence and the sentences of similarly situated defendants. The district court did *464not abuse its discretion. *See Gall v. United*States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The district court took account of disparity concerns and imposed a below-Guidelines sentence that is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. *See Gall,*552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit
99.4





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 Annual Report (the “Report”) on the Form 10-K/A of Vista
Dorada Corp. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Zhao Ying,
Principal Accounting Officer and Principal Financial Officer, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and
belief:





i.        The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





ii        The
information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





March 30,
2010





/s/
      Zhao YingZhao
      Ying, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting
      Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7305

UMADINE HATCH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DR. WILSON, NC Correctional Institution for Women; KENNETH PRICE, M.D.; 

UNC HOSPITALS,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

DR. BUCKMIRE, Ear, Nose & Throat - UNC Medical Center,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:17-ct-03030-BO)

Submitted: December 20, 2018 Decided: December 27, 2018

Before DIAZ and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Umadine Hatch, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, Madeleine Michelle 

Pfefferle, YOUNG MOORE & HENDERSON, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 
2

Appellee Stephen M. Wilson.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Umadine Hatch seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting summary 

judgment and dismissing, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, Hatch’s claims 

of deliberate indifference to her medical needs when she was a North Carolina prisoner. 

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely 

filed. 

Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or 

order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. 

App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on September 12, 2018. The 

notice of appeal was filed on October 18, 2018.

* Because Hatch failed to file a timely 

notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 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

 * For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of 

appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for 

mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
<PAGE>

       EQUITY CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT (this "Agreement"), dated as of June 6,
2002, by and among Premcor Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Premcor"), Premcor USA
Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Premcor USA") and The Premcor Refining Group
Inc., a Delaware corporation ("PRG").

                                   BACKGROUND

       1. The authorized capital stock of Sabine River Holding Corp., a Delaware
corporation ("Sabine"), consists of 12,000,000 shares of common stock, par value
$0.01 of which 6,136,364 shares are issued and outstanding (the "Outstanding
Sabine Shares").

       2. Occidental Petroleum Corporation previously held 681,818 shares of
Outstanding Sabine Shares, representing 10% of the capital stock of Sabine, and
has exchanged its shares for 1,363,636 newly issued shares of Premcor common
stock, resulting in Premcor owning 100% of the capital stock of Sabine.

                                    AGREEMENT

       1. Premcor hereby contributes and transfers all of its right, title, and
interest in the Outstanding Sabine Shares to Premcor USA, and Premcor USA hereby
subsequently contributes and transfers all of its right, title, and interest in
such Outstanding Sabine Shares to PRG.

       2. Premcor USA hereby accepts the contribution by Premcor of all of its
right, title, and interest in the Outstanding Sabine Shares.

       3. PRG hereby accepts the subsequent contribution by Premcor USA of all
of its right, title, and interest in the Outstanding Sabine Shares.

       IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of
the date and year first above written.

                                     PREMCOR INC.


                                     By:_______________________________________
                                        Name:
                                        Title:

                                     PREMCOR USA INC.


                                     By:_______________________________________
                                        Name:
                                        Title:

                                     THE PREMCOR REFINING GROUP INC.


                                     By:_______________________________________
                                        Name:
                                        Title:
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST

OF C.S.I.A. AND A.A.A.,

CHILDREN

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00174-CV

Appeal from the

83rd District Court

of Pecos County, Texas

(TC# P-6811-83-CV)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is Appellant’s motion to dismiss his appeal pursuant to 

TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. Costs of the appeal are 

taxed against Appellant. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(d).

December 14, 2016

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5987 

To provide for recreational access for floating cabins on the Tennessee River 

System, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2016 

Mr. MEADOWS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To provide for recreational access for floating cabins on 

the Tennessee River System, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. RECREATIONAL ACCESS OF FLOATING CABINS 

4 ON WATERS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF 

5 THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY. 

6 (a) RECREATIONAL ACCESS PERMITTED.—The 

7 Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority may 

8 approve and allow the construction and use of a floating 

9 cabin on waters under the jurisdiction of the Tennessee 

10 Valley Authority if— 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5987 IH

1 (1) the floating cabin is maintained by the 

2 owner to reasonable health, safety, and environ3 mental standards, as required by the Board of Di4 rectors; and 

5 (2) the Tennessee Valley Authority has author6 ized the use of recreational vessels on such waters. 

7 (b) FEES.—The Board of Directors may levy fees on 

8 the owner of a floating cabin on waters under the jurisdic9 tion of the Tennessee Valley Authority for purposes of en10 suring compliance with subsection (a), so long as such fees 

11 are necessary and reasonable for such purposes. 

12 (c) CONTINUED RECREATIONAL USE.—With respect 

13 to a floating cabin located on waters under the jurisdiction 

14 of the Tennessee Valley Authority on the date of enact15 ment of this section, the Board of Directors— 

16 (1) may not require the removal of such float17 ing cabin— 

18 (A) in the case of a floating cabin that was 

19 granted a permit by the Tennessee Valley Au20 thority before the date of enactment of this sec21 tion, for a period of 15 years beginning on such 

22 date; and 

23 (B) in the case of a floating cabin not 

24 granted a permit by the Tennessee Valley Au25 thority before the date of enactment of this secVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:17 Sep 13, 2016 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5987.IH H5987

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5987 IH

1 tion, for a period of 5 years beginning on such 

2 date; and 

3 (2) shall approve and allow the use of the float4 ing cabin on waters under the jurisdiction of the 

5 Tennessee Valley Authority at such time, and for 

6 such duration, as the floating cabin meets the re7 quirements of subsection (a) and the owner of such 

8 cabin has paid any fee levied pursuant to subsection 

9 (b). 

10 (d) DEFINITION OF FLOATING CABIN.—In this sec11 tion, the term ‘‘floating cabin’’ means every description 

12 of watercraft or other floating structure primarily de13 signed and used for human habitation or occupation and 

14 not primarily designed or used for navigation or transpor15 tation on water. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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 Annual Report of Skylyft Media Network, Inc. on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gregory Guido, Chief Financial Officer 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief: (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.

/s/ Gregory Guido 
Gregory Guido, Chief Financial Officer

September 2, 2008

1

---
# L_2007164EN.01003601.xml

| 26.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 164/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 164/36

---

Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 8 of 12 January 2001
  )

On page 15, second sentence of the second subparagraph in Article 26:

for:

‘The registers may be inspected by any person directly or indirectly through the European Data Processing Supervisor.’;

read:

‘The registers may be inspected by any person directly or indirectly through the European Data Protection Supervisor.’.

---
EXHIBIT 11

                                                     For the Three Months Ended
                                                             October 31
                                                             ----------
                                                          2000          1999
                                                      -----------   -----------
Shares outstanding                                      6,077,068     4,552,242
                                                      -----------    ----------

Weighted average shares outstanding                     6,007,158     4,451,372
Stock Options                                           1,412,675     1,452,500
Warrants                                                1,797,500     1,798,125
                                                      -----------    ----------
   Total weighted average shares outstanding            9,217,333     7,701,997
                                                      ===========    ==========

Net income (loss) before cumulative
   change in accounting principle                     $  (440,270)   $   80,925

Cumulative effect of change
   in accounting principle                                     --        79,896
                                                      -----------    ----------

Net income (loss)                                     $  (440,270)   $  160,821
                                                      ===========    ==========

Basic Net Earnings (Loss) per share
  Net income (loss) per common share before
    change in accounting principle                     $    (0.07)   $     0.02
  Cumulative effect of change
    in accounting principle                                    --          0.02
                                                      -----------    ----------

  Net income (loss) per common share                  $     (0.07)   $     0.04
                                                      ===========    ==========
Diluted Net Earnings (Loss) per share
   Net income (loss) per common share before change   $     (0.07)   $     0.01
       in accounting principal
   Cumulative effect of change
       in accounting principle                                 --          0.01
                                                      -----------    ----------
   Net income (loss) per common share                 $     (0.07)   $     0.02
                                                      ===========    ==========
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis Jaime PEREZ, a/k/a Pri, a/k/a Canello, a/k/a Jose Luis Jaimes Perez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6862

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 16, 2017

Decided: November 21, 2017

Jose Luis Jaime Perez, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jose Luis Jaime Perez appeals the district court’s order denying his fourth motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) and Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which the district court construed as Perez’s third motion for reconsideration of the order denying his initial § 3582(c)(2) motion based on Amendment 782. “We review a district court’s decision to reduce a sen*201tence under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion and its ruling as to the scope of its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2) de novo.” *United States v. Muldrow,*844 F.3d 434, 437 (4th Cir. 2016).

The district court concluded that it lacked authority to consider Perez’s motion, pursuant to *United States v. Goodwyn,*596 F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th Cir. 2010) (holding that no federal statute expressly authorizes a district court to reconsider its order on a § 3582(c)(2) motion). However, we recently clarified that the prohibition against “18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)-based motions for reconsideration” is not jurisdictional and therefore is “waived when the government fail[s] to assert it below.” *United States v. May,*855 F.3d 271, 274 (4th Cir. 2017). Nevertheless, as the district court correctly noted, Perez was not eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) because his variance sentence was below the amended Guidelines range and was not based on substantial assistance. *See*U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(b)(2).

Accordingly, we affirm. 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*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       9,395,975
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,701,535
<ALLOWANCES>                                   195,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,291,745
<PP&E>                                       5,119,608
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,885,532
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,564,619
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,251,704
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,533
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,306,382
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,564,619
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,290,742
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,201,399
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,364,907
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (121,575)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,153,989)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,153,989)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,153,989)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.18)
        

</TABLE>