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



I,  Joel Hand, certify that:



1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Qualsec.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make the statements made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15f-15(f) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such internal control over financial reporting,  or caused such internal control over financial reporting  to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of the financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

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

Date: April 6, 2009



/s/ Joel Hand

Joel  Hand

Chief Executive and Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAFAEL ALVAREZ NAVARRO and NORMA ABRICA SANCHEZ,

Petitioners,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 17

- 72758

Agency Nos. A096

- 061

- 021

A096

- 061

- 022

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 22, 2018 **

Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Rafael Alvarez Navarro and Norma Abrica Sanchez, natives and citizens of

Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen,

* 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

OCT 31 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 72758

Iturribarria v. INS , 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003)

, and w e deny the petition for

review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to

reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel , where they filed t he motion

nearly eleven years after the filing deadline, and failed to demonstrate the due

diligence necessary to warrant equitable tolling of the filing deadline

. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(c)(2); Avagyan v. Holder , 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitabl e

tolling is available to a petitioner who is prevented from timely filing a motion to

reopen due to deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner exercises due

diligence in discovering such circumstances).

Further, the BIA did not abuse its disc retion in denying petitioners’ motion

to reopen where petitioners failed to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum

,

withholding of removal

, or relief under the Convention Against Torture

. See

Najmabadi

, v. Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) ( the BIA can deny a

motion to reopen for failure to esta blish prima facie eligibility for the relief

sought ).3 17

- 72758

Finally, we reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to properly

analyze their claims.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1474

In Re: VICTOR WARDELL WRIGHT,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(8:06-cr-00038-DKC-1; 8:08-cv-02830-DKC)

Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: July 30, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Victor Wardell Wright, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Victor Wardell Wright petitions for a writ of 

mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting 

on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion for a writ of 

habeas corpus. He seeks an order from this court directing the 

district court to act. Our review of the district court’s 

docket reveals that the district court denied Wright’s motion on 

May 26, 2010. Accordingly, because the district court has 

recently decided Wright’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as 

moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
#### Renee FEREBEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES; Bill Pound, Executive Director; Carl Tubbesing, Director Retired, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-2296

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 30, 2018

Decided: February 1, 2018

Renee Ferebee, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Renee Ferebee appeals the district court’s order denying her second motion for reconsideration of the court’s prior order dismissing Ferebee’s civil action against her former employer and other named defendants. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Ferebee does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition in her informal brief. Thus, Ferebee has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. *See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,*370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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*
#### Montgomery Blair SIBLEY, Appellant v. Richard W. ROBERTS and Angela Caesar, Appellees

No. 16-5888

September Term, 2016

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed On: August 31, 2017

Montgomery Blair Sibley, Law Office of Montgomery Blair Sibley, Rockville, MD, pro se.

H. Thomas Byron, III, Casen Ross, U.S. Department of Justice, (DOJ) Civil Division, Appellate Staff, Washington, DC, for Appellees.

BEFORE: Tatel, Brown, and Wilkins, Circuit Judges

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed December 19, 2016, be affirmed. The court did not abuse its discretion or otherwise err in denying appellant’s recusal motion. See, e.g., United States v. Haldeman, 559 F.2d 31, 34 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (en banc). Moreover, the court properly dismissed appellant’s damages claims on immunity grounds. See, e.g., Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978); Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460-61 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (per curiam). Finally, appellant has forfeited any challenge to the dismissal of his claim for declaratory relief by failing to address it in his opening brief. See, e.g., Weinstein v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 831 F.3d 470, 484 (D.C. Cir. 2016).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
##### 



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  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Citizens First Financial Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, C.
William Landefeld, Chief Executive 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:  (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. /s/C. William Landefeld
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 100 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 100

 Relating to the future status of Taiwan after Hong Kong's transfer to 
            the People's Republic of China on July 1, 1997.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 18, 1997

   Mr. Deutsch (for himself and Mr. Chabot) submitted the following 
     concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                        International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Relating to the future status of Taiwan after Hong Kong's transfer to 
            the People's Republic of China on July 1, 1997.

Whereas Hong Kong was acquired by the British in 1898 and leased from China for 
        99 years;
Whereas the treaty through which the Hong Kong territory was leased from China 
        expires on July 1, 1997, at which time Hong Kong will be returned to the 
        People's Republic of China;
Whereas Beijing has vowed to implement the ``one country, two systems'' formula 
        on Hong Kong after its transfer; and
Whereas no treaties between the People's Republic of China and Taiwan exist 
        which determine the future status of Taiwan and, unlike Hong Kong, 
        Taiwan has been de facto independent since 1949: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that--
            (1) the transfer of Hong Kong to the People's Republic of 
        China does not alter the current and future status of Taiwan as 
        a free and de facto independent country; and
            (2) the future of Taiwan should be determined by peaceful 
        means through a democratic process in accordance with the 
        principle of self-determination, as outlined in the Charter of 
        the United Nations.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CEO 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 on
Form 10-K of Fortress Investment Group LLC (the Company) for the annual period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Daniel H. Mudd, as Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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 his knowledge:



|(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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Daniel H. Mudd     
|Daniel H. Mudd         
|Chief Executive Officer
|March 1, 2010          

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

A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

 

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

 

The undersigned executive officer of First Federal Bancshares ofArkansas, Inc. (the “Registrant”) hereby certifies that the Registrant’s Form10-Q for the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2004 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13a or 15d of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 and that the information contained therein fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theRegistrant.

 

 
|                    | /s/Larry J.  Brandt                |   |
|-------------------------|------------------------------------|--------|
|                    | Larry J.  Brandt                   |
|                    | President/Chief  Executive Officer |
|                    |                               |
| Date:  October 27, 2004 |                               |

 

----
S. Con. Res. 31 Agreed to November 8, 1995

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the fourth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-five

Concurrent Resolution

Whereas Yitzhak Rabin, a true hero of Israel, was born in Jerusalem

on March 1, 1922;

Whereas Yitzhak Rabin served in the Israel Defense Forces for

more than two decades, and fought in three wars including service

as Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces during the Six

Day War of June 1967;

Whereas Yitzhak Rabin served the people of Israel with great

distinction in a number of government positions, including

Ambassador to the United States from 1968 to 1973, Minister

of Defense from 1984 to 1988, and twice as Prime Minister

from 1974 to 1977 and from June 1992 until his assassination;

Whereas under the leadership of Yitzhak Rabin, a framework for

peace between Israel and the Palestinians was established with

the signing of the Declaration of Principles on September 13,

1993, continued with the conclusion of a peace treaty between

Israel and Jordan on October 26, 1994, and continues today;

Whereas on December 10, 1994, Yitzhak Rabin was awarded the

Nobel Prize for Peace for his vision and accomplishments as

a peacemaker;

Whereas shortly before his assassination, Yitzhak Rabin said, ‘‘I

have always believed that the majority of the people want peace

and are ready to take a chance for peace.... Peace is not

only in prayers... but it is in the desire of the Jewish people.’’;

Whereas Yitzhak Rabin’s entire life was dedicated to the cause

of peace and security for Israel and its people; and

Whereas on November 4, 1995, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was

assassinated in Tel Aviv, Israel: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That the Congress—

(1) condemns the heinous assassination of Prime Minister

Yitzhak Rabin in the strongest possible terms;

(2) extends its deepest sympathy and condolences to the

family of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and to all the people

of Israel in this moment of tragedy;

(3) expresses its admiration for the historic contributions

made by Yitzhak Rabin over his long and distinguished career

of public service;

(4) expresses its support for the government of Acting

Prime Minister Shimon Peres; and

(5) reaffirms its commitment to the process of building

a just and lasting peace between Israel and its neighbors.
S. Con. Res. 31—2

SEC. 2. When the Senate completes its business today, it stand

adjourned as a further mark of respect in honor of the late Yitzhak

Rabin.

SEC. 3. The Secretary of the Senate is directed to transmit

an enrolled copy of this resolution to the family of the deceased.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
June 27, 2012

Meeting with Hector Ybanez, Holcim Cement

Attendees:

Sharon Nizich, US EPA

Keith Barnett, US EPA

Hector Ybanez, Holcim Cement

Michael Laney, RTI

A meeting was held today to discuss the NESHAP Portland Cement Reconsideration proposal.

Discussion was on the revisions to several PM monitoring and recordkeeping items, in the

proposal, as posted at the following link:

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/fr_notices/portcem_nsps_neshap_prop_062212.pdf
#### Vincent Paul MELENDREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael COMPSTON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-35416

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 21, 2017

Vincent Paul Melendrez, Pro Se

Richard L. Anderson, Esquire, .King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Washington state prisoner Vincent Paul Melendrez appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.C.S. § 1983 action alleging claims arising from an assault by another inmate during Me-lendrez’s pretrial detention. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, We review de novo. *FTC v. Stefanchik,*559 F.3d 924, 927 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Melendrez failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants placed Melen-drez at a substantial risk of serious harm. *See Castro v. County of Los Angeles,*833 F.3d 1060, 1067-71 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (elements of a failure-to-protect claim under the Fourteenth Amendment).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction against defendant John Caster because Melendrez failed to show good cause for the failure to serve Caster after two attempts by the U.S. Marshals Service. *See Puett v. Blandford,*912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a prisoner “proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal for service” as *360long as he or she “provide[s] the necessary-information to help effectuate service”).

We reject as without merit Melendrez’s contention that his due process rights were violated by the district court’s consideration of defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 144 (Friday, July 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 45286]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18016]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8394]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Canterbury and St. Albans: Treasures from Church and 
Cloister''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Canterbury and St. Albans: Treasures from 
Church and Cloister,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition 
within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are 
imported pursuant to loan agreements with foreign owners or custodians. 
I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects 
at The J. Paul Getty Museum at the Getty Center, Los Angeles, CA, from 
on or about September 20, 2013, until on or about February 2, 2014; The 
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY, from on or about February 24, 
2014, until on or about May 18, 2014, and at possible additional 
exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national 
interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be 
published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: July 22, 2013.
Ann Stock,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2013-18016 Filed 7-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

86 

CA 15-00084 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

DONTIE S. MITCHELL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V ORDER

WOODS OVIATT GILMAN, LLP, AND WILLIAM G. BAUER, 

DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. 

(APPEAL NO. 1.)

 

DONTIE S. MITCHELL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE. 

WOODS OVIATT GILMAN LLP, ROCHESTER (WILLIAM G. BAUER OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County (Thomas

G. Leone, A.J.), entered June 5, 2014. The order, among other things,

denied that part of plaintiff’s motion seeking to strike defendants’

answer. 

Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation of discontinuance

signed by the plaintiff on November 27, 2015 and by the attorney for

the defendants on December 3, 2015, 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed 

without costs upon stipulation.

Entered: February 5, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court