alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32

**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 LYFE Communications, Inc., (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Gregory Smith, CEO and Stephen L. Russo, CFO 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:

(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.

| *Date:*

*April 15, 2011*

 

*By:*

*/s/Gregory Smith*

 

 

 

 

*Gregory Smith, CEO*

 

 

 

 

 

*Date:*

*April 15, 2011*

 

*By:*

*/s/Stephen L. Russo*

 

 

 

 

*Stephen L. Russo, CFO* |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1.   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   By: |   /s/David Lester                                                |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  Name:     |  David Lester                                                         |
|  Title:    |  Principal Executive Officer,Principal Financial Officer and Director |
|  Date:     |  March 31, 2010                                                       |
| (1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Registrant. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                   |                    |
|------------------------|-------------------------|
| Dated: August 14, 2009 | /s/ TERRY BATEMAN       |
|                   | Terry Bateman,          |
|                   | Chief Executive Officer |
|                   | NTN Buzztime, Inc.      |

----
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 587 

Expressing support for the designation of the week of March 25 through 

March 31, 2024, as ‘‘National Farmworker Awareness Week’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 13, 2023 

Ms. LOFGREN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Agriculture 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the designation of the week of March 

25 through March 31, 2024, as ‘‘National Farmworker 

Awareness Week’’. 

Whereas farmworkers are essential workers; 

Whereas farmworkers provide invaluable and needed goods 

and services; 

Whereas farmworkers are important and valued members of 

communities across the country; 

Whereas farm work is often highly skilled, including operating complex machinery; 

Whereas the Department of Agriculture estimates that agricultural and food employment accounts for 10 percent of 

employment in the United States; 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HRES 587 IH 

Whereas farmworkers are at an increased risk of experiencing 

unsafe working conditions, including exposure to pesticides and extreme weather conditions, especially high 

heat; 

Whereas farmworkers often have to wear long sleeves to protect themselves from pesticides, even during high heat; 

Whereas the rate of illness and injury among agricultural employees is 37 times higher than the rate for nonagricultural workers; 

Whereas farmworkers do not enjoy many labor protections 

enjoyed by other workers; 

Whereas natural disasters often prevent farmworkers from 

receiving income for weeks or months; 

Whereas, despite the above challenges, farmworkers have ensured a reliable food supply for the country, including 

during the COVID–19 pandemic; 

Whereas a week of appreciation will help younger generations 

learn where their food comes from; 

Whereas the Department of Labor and the Environmental 

Protection Agency have celebrated farmworkers during 

‘‘National Farmworker Awareness Week’’; 

Whereas ‘‘National Farmworker Awareness Week’’ recognizes 

the contributions of farmworkers who work in fields, 

packing, sorting, processing, and other related activities 

and the issues they face; and 

Whereas the week of March 25 through March 31 is generally recognized as ‘‘National Farmworker Awareness 

Week’’: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HRES 587 IH 

1 (1) supports the designation of ‘‘National 

2 Farmworker Awareness Week’’; 

3 (2) recognizes the challenging conditions in 

4 which farmworkers work; and 

5 (3) commends the significant contributions of 

6 farmworkers to our country. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
#### Maria Trinidad ORTIZ-REYES, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-71302,

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2004.*

Decided May 20, 2004.

Antonio Reyna Salazar, Esq., Salazar Law Offices, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, Mark C. Walters, Esq., Victor M. Lawrence, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Maria Trinidad Ortiz-Reyes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of her request for cancellation of removal and the BIA’s subsequent decision denying as untimely Ortiz’s motion to reopen her removal proceedings. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

Ortiz filed her petition for review over 30 days after the BIA’s final decision on her cancellation of removal application. Consequently, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision on her application. *See Sheviakov v. INS,*237 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.2001).

We have jurisdiction over the BIA’s decision denying Ortiz’s motion to reopen, *see 8*U.S.C. § 1252(b), and we review for an abuse of discretion, *see Lin v. Ashcroft,*356 F.3d 1027, 1034 (9th Cir.2004). The BIA appropriately denied Ortiz’s motion to *791reopen because the motion was filed more than 90 days after the BIA mailed notice of its decision to the address of record for Petitioner’s attorney. *See Taniguchi v. Schultz,*303 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir.2002). Furthermore, we do not consider whether Oriz may be entitled to equitable tolling because that issue was not raised before, or considered by, the BIA. *See id.*

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part, and DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 13.1



Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b)
or Rule 15d-14(b) of

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted
pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

18 U.S.C. Section 1350



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Mission NewEnergy
Limited (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:



| | 1. | The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended June 30, 2015 (the “Form 20-F”) of the Company 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 Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: November 12, 2015



|/s/ Dato’ Nathan Mahalingam | 
|--------------------------- | 
|Dato’ Nathan Mahalingam     | 
|Chief Executive Officer     | 



Date: November 12, 2015



|/s/ Guy Burnett         | 
|----------------------- | 
|Guy Burnett             | 
|Chief Financial Officer |
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Robert J. Terrano, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Del Taco RestaurantProperties II, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Del Taco Restaurant Properties II; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 

 
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financialreporting.   Date: August 15, 2005 /s/ Robert J. Terrano     Robert J. Terrano  Executive Vice President,  Chief Financial Officer
Latrai SPRAGGINS v. STATE of Mississippi

2016-CT-00357-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: January 4, 2018 Closed: March 1, 2018

Certiorari - Denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HORACE M. CHAMBERS,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 14-70104

Tax Ct. No. 2474-13L

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from a Decision of the

United States Tax Court

Submitted June 22, 2015** 

Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Horace M. Chambers appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s summary

judgment in his action seeking to challenge his underlying tax liabilities and the

Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s collection activities for tax years 2005 and

2007. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo,

FILED

JUL 09 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

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

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Johnston v. Comm’r, 461 F.3d 1162, 1164 (9th Cir. 2006), and we affirm.

The Tax Court properly granted summary judgment because Chambers

received the notices of deficiency for the tax years at issue and disputed his

liabilities with the agency, and therefore could not raise those issues in the hearing

regarding the proposed levies. See 26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(2)(B) (a person may raise

challenges to underlying tax liability in the hearing regarding a proposed levy “if

the person did not receive any statutory notice of deficiency for such tax liability or

did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability”).

Chambers’s pending motions are denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

2 14-70104
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Senior Airman DARRYL L. BAKER III

United States Air Force

ACM 38756

8 October 2015

Sentence adjudged 14 October 2014 by GCM convened at MacDill Air 

Force Base, Florida. Military Judge: Matthew S, Ward (sitting alone).

Approved Sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 6 months, 

and reduction to E-1.

Appellate Counsel for the Appellant: Captain Michael A. Schrama.

Appellate Counsel for the United States: Colonel Katherine E. Oler.

Before

ALLRED, MITCHELL, and MAYBERRY

Appellate Military Judges

This opinion is issued as an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent 

under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

PER CURIAM:

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error 

materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occurred. Article 66(c), 

UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c); United States v. Reed, 54 M.J. 37, 41 (C.A.A.F. 2000). 

 

 The court notes that the court-martial order (CMO), dated 29 Jan 2015 incorrectly states that Charge II is Article 

34. The CMO also incorrectly states the wrong sentencing date. The court orders the promulgation of a corrected 

CMO.
2 ACM 38756

Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

STEVEN LUCAS

Clerk of the Court
C.W., the Father, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 3D16-2674

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

FEBRUARY 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
June 10, 2015 

Mr. Roger Mason 

Lockheed Martin MST 

103 Chesapeake Park Plaza 

Baltimore, MD 21220 

Dear Mr. Mason: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your May 19, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

1795), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does 

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 12a0186n.06

Nos. 08-4139, 09-3587

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

MUSA ABDUL IKHARO,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE

BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

OPINION

Before: GILMAN and WHITE, Circuit Judges; and THAPAR, District Judge.*

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. This court’s judgment entered on August 2,

2010 was vacated by the Supreme Court on January 10, 2012 and the case remanded for further

consideration in light of Judulang v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 476 (2011). The Court in Judulang

determined that the policy of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in its application of § 212(c)

of the Immigration and NationalityAct to deportation cases was “arbitrary and capricious” under the

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

In the case before us, the BIA denied Musa Abdul Ikharo any consideration of relief under

§ 212(c) from the immigration judge’s order of deportation. That was due at least in part to the

BIA’s now-discredited policy of applying the “comparable-grounds approach” as fully discussed in 

Judulang. The Supreme Court has called on the BIA “to devise another, equally economical policy

The Honorable Amul R. Thapar, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by

*

designation.
respecting eligibility for § 212(c) relief, so long as it comports with everything held in both this

decision and St. Cyr.” Judulang, 132 S. Ct. at 490. We therefore remand Ikharo’s case to the BIA

for reconsideration in light of Judulang.

-2-
Jeffrey W. SULLIVAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1668

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 4.8
   TRM Corporation
 Amended and Restated  Warrant To Purchase Common Stock
 Warrant No.: 0004
    
    Number of Shares: 1,069,082
  Company Warrant
Shares
 1




---



##### 



Amended Second Lien Loan Agreement Amended Second
Lien Loan Agreement Second Lien Warrants




---



##### 



Definitions
 Approved Stock Plan
 Business Day
 Common Stock
 Convertible Security
 Expiration Date
 Options
 Person
 Principal Market
 Registration Rights Agreement
 Securities Act
 Trading Day




---



##### 



Warrant
 Warrant Allocation Percentage
 Warrant Exercise Price
 Weighted Average Price Bloomberg
 Exercise of Warrant
 Exhibit A Exercise Notice Aggregate Exercise Price




---



##### 



nd Warrant
Share Delivery Date Exercise Delivery Documents Deemed Issuance Date
 Warrant Delivery Date




---



##### 



Cashless
Exercise
 Net Number =
    
    (A x B) - (A x C)B
     Book-Entry




---



##### 



Covenants as to Common Stock




---



##### 



Taxes
 Warrant Holder Not Deemed a Shareholder
 Representations of Holder Accredited Investor




---



##### 



Representation
Notice
 Ownership and Transfer
    Adjustment of Warrant Exercise Price
 Adjustment of Warrant Exercise Price upon Issuance of Common Stock Applicable Price Exempted
Issuances




---



##### 



Effect on Warrant Exercise Price of Certain Events
 Issuance of Options
 Issuance of Convertible Securities
 Change in Option Price or Rate of Conversion.




---



##### 



Effect on Warrant Exercise Price of Certain Events
 Calculation of Consideration Received Option Consideration Valuation Event




---



##### 



Record Date
 Black-Scholes Value Black-Scholes Value Black-Scholes Valuation Date
 Adjustment of Warrant Exercise Price upon Subdivision or Combination of Common
Stock




---



##### 



Distribution of Assets Distribution
 Certain Events
 Notices
    Purchase Rights; Reorganization, Reclassification, Consolidation, Merger or
Sale




---



##### 



Purchase Rights Purchase Rights
 Organic Change Acquiring Entity
 Lost, Stolen, Mutilated or Destroyed Warrant




---



##### 



Notice
  
  
 Schedule of Buyers Schedule of Buyers
 Limitation on Number of Warrant Shares . Exchange Cap




---



##### 



Date Warrant Date
 Amendment and Waiver
 Descriptive Headings; Governing Law
 Rules of Construction




---



##### 



* * * * * *
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 TRM CORPORATIONBy:
    /s/ Richard SternName:
    Richard SternTitle:
    President and Chief Executive Officer




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A TO WARRANT
 EXERCISE NOTICE
   Warrant Shares Company Warrant
  a Cash Exercise with respect to  
Warrant Shares; and/ora Cashless Exercise with respect to  Warrant.
 
 
 Issue to:
 Facsimile Number:
 Account Number (if electronic book entry transfer):




---



##### 



ACKNOWLEDGMENT
 
 TRM CORPORATIONBy:Name:Title:




---



##### 



EXHIBIT B TO WARRANT
  
 
 Name:Title: