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

----

**Certification        of Chief Executive and Financial Officer of**

**Monument        Resources, Inc. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350**

**Company**
**Report**

|   | 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                  Company. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                                                 |   |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ A.G.                  Foust                                                                                 |   |   |        |
|                                                                                                                      |   |   |        |
| Name:A.G.                  FoustTitle:  Chief Executive and                  Financial                  Officer |   |   |   |
|  Date: August                  10, 2006                                                                    |   |   |   |

----

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-28-1997
<CASH>                                          30,720
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  257,358
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,970
<INVENTORY>                                    464,145
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               761,066
<PP&E>                                          69,674
<DEPRECIATION>                                  68,515
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 944,912
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          679,197
<BONDS>                                         55,250
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,153
<OTHER-SE>                                     205,859
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   944,912
<SALES>                                      1,813,904
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,813,904
<CGS>                                        1,631,787
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,631,787
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               147,671
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,184
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,262
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,308
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,954
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,954
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .94
        

</TABLE>
**
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

**Pursuantto 18 U.S.C Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906**

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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersignedofficers of Rand Capital Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 

The AnnualReport on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018 (the Form 10-K) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated: March 7, 2019 

 

*/s/ Allen F. Grum*
Allen F. Grum, President(Chief Executive Officer)
Dated: March 7, 2019 

 

*/s/ Daniel P. Penberthy*
Daniel P. Penberthy, Treasurer(Chief Financial Officer)**
```

[Federal Register: June 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 114)]
[Notices]               
[Page 33763]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15jn10-45]                         

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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

 
Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the New Hampshire Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act that a planning meeting of the New Hampshire 
Advisory Committee will convene at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, June 29, 2010 
at Pierce Law School, 2 White Street, Faculty Lounge, Concord, NH 
03301. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the Committee's work on 
gender disparities in New Hampshire prisons.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the 
comments must be received in the regional office by July 29, 2010. 
Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. 
Commission on Civil Rights, 624 Ninth Street, NW., Suite 740, 
Washington, DC 20425. They may be faxed to 202-376-7748, or e-mailed to 
ero@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact 
the Eastern Regional Office at 202-376-7756.
    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require 
the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Eastern 
Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled 
date of the meeting.
    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced 
at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before 
and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory 
committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above 
e-mail or street address.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the rules and regulations 
of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Washington, DC, June 9, 2010.
Peter Minarik,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2010-14309 Filed 6-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
# C_2022482EN.01000901.xml

| 19.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 482/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 482/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Göteborg, migrationsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 7 October 2022 — A.L. v Migrationsverket

(Case C-629/22)

(2022/C 482/13)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Förvaltningsrätten i Göteborg, migrationsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A.L.

Defendant: Migrationsverket

Questions referred

| 1. | What is the meaning of Article 6(2) of the Returns Directive? (1) Does it mean that a third-country national must be requested to return immediately from the Member State in which he or she is staying illegally to the Member State in which he or she has a valid residence permit, unless the third-country national’s immediate departure is required for reasons of public policy or national security? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What is the meaning of Article 6(2) of the Returns Directive? (1) Does it mean that a third-country national must be requested to return immediately from the Member State in which he or she is staying illegally to the Member State in which he or she has a valid residence permit, unless the third-country national’s immediate departure is required for reasons of public policy or national security?

| 2. | Does the Returns Directive or other EU law provide guidance on what the consequence is of a national authority not issuing the necessary request pursuant to Article 6(2) of the Returns Directive? Does a failure to issue the necessary request mean that the removal decision and the decision banning return are invalid? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Returns Directive or other EU law provide guidance on what the consequence is of a national authority not issuing the necessary request pursuant to Article 6(2) of the Returns Directive? Does a failure to issue the necessary request mean that the removal decision and the decision banning return are invalid?

| 3. | If Article 6(2) of the Returns Directive entails such a request and consequence, is it sufficiently clear and precise to have direct effect? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Article 6(2) of the Returns Directive entails such a request and consequence, is it sufficiently clear and precise to have direct effect?

| 4. | Is national legislation, such as the Swedish rule in Paragraph 6 a of Chapter 8 of the Law on foreign nationals, which creates additional exemptions from a possible obligation to issue a [request], compatible with EU law? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is national legislation, such as the Swedish rule in Paragraph 6 a of Chapter 8 of the Law on foreign nationals, which creates additional exemptions from a possible obligation to issue a [request], compatible with EU law?

---

(1)  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).

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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                            349
<SECURITIES>                                        0         
<RECEIVABLES>                                      39
<ALLOWANCES>                                        5
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  443 
<PP&E>                                             38
<DEPRECIATION>                                     22
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    639
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             332
<BONDS>                                           124
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                         80
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      639
<SALES>                                             0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  643
<CGS>                                               0         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     542 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    7
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    2
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  8
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     0
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                     20 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   (6)
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                       14
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .57
        

</TABLE>
No. 11-10316.

#### Barlow *v.*Scribner, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-10617.

#### Goodwin *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE> 1

                                  Exhibit 32.1

                               Pyramid Oil Company

                  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 Pyramid Oil Company (the Company) on
Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, John H. Alexander, 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
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.


     Dated: September 10, 2010

                                               JOHN H. ALEXANDER
                                               -----------------
                                               John H. Alexander
                                            Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Damon Derrall PITTMAN, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-60404 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 6, 2018

Annette Williams, Gaines H. Cleveland, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Mississippi, Gulfport, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee

James L. Farrior, III, Esq., Biloxi, MS, for Defendant-Appellant

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Damon Derrall Pittman appeals following his guilty plea conviction of receiving or possessing a firearm made in violation of Chapter 53 of Title 26 of the United States Code. He argues that the addition of four offense levels for trafficking in firearms pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5), along with the addition of four offense levels under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possessing a firearm in connection with another offense, constitutes prohibited double counting. Pittman also contends that there was insufficient proof to support the enhancement for trafficking in firearms under § 2K2.1(b)(5).

The Government moves to dismiss the appeal or, alternatively, for summary affir-mance based on the appeal waiver in Pittman’s plea agreement. Pittman’s opening brief did not address the waiver and he has not responded to the Government’s argument.

We review de novo whether an appeal waiver bars an appeal. *United States v. Keele,*755 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2014). Pittman’s waiver was knowing and voluntary as the record shows that he knew he had the right to appeal and that he was giving up that right by entering the plea agreement. *See United States v. Higgins,*739 F.3d 733, 736 (5th Cir. 2014). Also, the waiver plainly applies to his challenge to the application of sentencing enhancements. *See id.*Based on pur review of the record we are satisfied that the plea agreement not been breached. *See United States v. Reeves,*255 F.3d 208, 210 (5th Cir. 2001).

Accordingly, we GRANT the Government’s motion to dismiss based on the appeal waiver and DENY the alternative motion for summary affirmance. Counsel for Pittman is cautioned that pursuing an appeal contrary to a valid waiver and without responding to the Government’s invocation of the waiver is a needless waste of judicial resources and could result in sanctions. *See United States v. Gaitan,*171 F.3d 222, 223-24 (5th Cir. 1999).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

 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.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 6, 2014

No. 04-13-00420-CV

TIME WARNER, INC. and Time Warner Cable, LLC,

Appellants

v.

Dulio GONZALEZ,

Appellee

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-CI-06770

Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr., Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellee’s brief was originally due on January 2, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b). 

This court granted Appellee’s first motion for extension of time to file the brief until February 3, 

2014, for an extension of thirty days. On February 3, 2014, Appellee filed a second motion for 

extension of time to file the brief until February 11, 2014, for a total extension of forty days. 

Appellee’s motion for extension of time is GRANTED. Appellee’s brief must be filed 

with this court by February 11, 2014. See id. 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 6th day of February, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
1. I have reviewed this
          report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Navient Student Loan Trust 2015-1 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);
 
 2. Based on my knowledge,
          the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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,
          all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
 
 4. Based on my knowledge and
          the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer and administrator have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing
          agreement and administration agreement, as applicable, in all material respects; and
 
 5. All of the reports on
          assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in
          accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports
          have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K. In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as indenture trustee.
 
  
 
  
 /s/ Joe FisherJoe FisherPresident and Chief Financial Officer (Senior Securitization Officer)Navient Funding, LLC
#### PAUL CHOY, Appellant, v. AMERISTAR CASINOS, INC., a Nevada Corporation, Respondent.

No. 56281

June 28, 2012

279 P.3d 191

*Nersesian & Sankiewicz*and *Robert A. Nersesian*and *Thea Marie Sankiewicz,*Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Pisanelli Bice, PLLC,*and *Todd L. Bice*and *Jarrod L. Rickard,*Las Vegas, for Respondent.

OPINION

By the Court,

Douglas, J.:

Appellant Paul Choy filed a complaint in district court alleging various tort claims against respondent Ameristar Casinos, Inc., arising out of Choy’s alleged detention by security guards at the Ameristar Casino Hotel Kansas City in Missouri. After Ameristar Casinos, Inc., filed a motion for summary judgment, Choy filed an opposition that included a paragraph arguing that under NRCP 56(f) the summary judgment motion should be continued to allow for discovery. The district court denied Choy’s request to continue the motion to allow for discovery and granted summary judgment.

On appeal, Choy argued that the district court erred in denying his request under NRCP 56(f) and granting summary judgment. This court issued an opinion affirming the district court’s order granting summary judgment and denying Choy’s NRCP 56(f) request, holding that Choy failed to substantially comply with NRCP 56(f)’s requirement that the party opposing a motion for summary judgment and seeking a denial or continuance of the motion in order to conduct further discovery must provide an affidavit giving the reasons why the party cannot present “facts essential to justify the party’s opposition.” *Choy v. Ameristar Casinos,*127 Nev. 870, 872, 265 P.3d 698, 700 (2011). Choy thereafter filed a timely petition for rehearing, which was denied. Choy then filed this timely petition for en banc reconsideration.

En banc reconsideration is appropriate when needed to preserve precedential uniformity or the matter presents issues involving *324substantial precedential, constitutional, or public policy value. NRAP 40A(a). Choy contends this court’s precedent did not require parties to comply with NRCP 56(f)’s affidavit requirement, citing to *Halimi*v. *Blacketor,*105 Nev. 105, 106, 770 P.2d 531, 531 (1989), in support of his argument. To the extent that *Halimi*is inconsistent with the text of NRCP 56(f) and this court’s holding in *Choy,*that parties must substantially comply with NRCP 56(f)’s affidavit requirement, we disapprove of the holding in *Halimi.*

Choy has failed to demonstrate that en banc reconsideration is warranted in this appeal, and the petition is therefore denied.1

Cherry, C.J., and Saitta, Gibbons, Pickering, Hardesty, and Parraguirre, JJ., concur.

1

The remaining arguments made by Choy in his petition also fail to demonstrate that en banc reconsideration is warranted.
No. 11-10477.

#### Settle *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
No. 11-10548.

#### Bertanelli *v.*Ryan, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.