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





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE





In connection with the report on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 (the Report), I, Allen D. Goodman, Principal Financial Officer of Price Asset Management, Inc., the managing member of RICI® Linked – PAM Advisors Fund, LLC (the Fund), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 Fund.











/s/ Allen D. Goodman


Allen D. Goodman


Chief Financial Officer


Price Asset Management, Inc.


Managing Member


RICI® Linked – PAM Advisors Fund, LLC


March 30, 2010
### U.S. Access Board: Rail Vehicle **s Access Advisory Committee**  **Subcommittee on Boarding and Alighting** 

**April 11 , 2014**  **1:0 0**  **– 3**  **:00 Eastern** 1.0 Introductions 2.0 Approval of the Agenda 3.0 Selection of Subcommittee chair 4 .0 Discussion of s ubcommittee scope and objectives 5 .0 

### Boarding and alighting d iscussion 5 .1 Review c urrent law and regulations 5 .2 Discuss boarding methods and appropriate modes A. level boarding B. ramps and bridgeplates C. lifts 5.3 Identify accessibility characteristics and spatial needs A. design load B. clear space C. vertical clearance 6.0 Planning 6.1 Develop action items 6.2 Assign duties and t asks 6.3 Establish deadlines for d eliverables

**Meeting Material in three attachments.**
Exhibit 32.2  Section 1350 Certification by Chief Financial Officer








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 Texas Rare Earth Resources Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended August 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Wm. Chris Mathers, 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 results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Wm. Chris Mathers


Wm. Chris Mathers, Chief Financial Officer


February 8, 2011
#### Georgy STRIGUNOV, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-70512,

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2004.*

Decided May 20, 2004.

Nicholas W. Marchi, Esq., Carney & Marchi, P.S., 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, District Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Seattle, WA, James A. Hunolt, Esq., Allen W. Hausman, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Georgy Strigunov, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the IJ’s decision for substantial evidence because the BIA adopted the IJ’s reasoning. *Vallecillo-Castillo v. INS,*121 F.3d 1237, 1238-39 (9th Cir.1996). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Strigunov was not persecuted on account of a protected ground because the treatment Strigunov received in Russia amounted to nothing more than criminal extortion. *See Bolshakov v. INS,*133 F.3d 1279, 1281 (9th Cir.1998).

Strigunov, in failing to qualify for asylum, necessarily failed to satisfy the more stringent standard required to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. *See Pedro-Mateo v. INS,*224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.2000).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 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.
Rebecca KOPRAS, Appellant, v. MARCO MARINE CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida Corporation; and Robert Kopras, Appellees.

Case No. 2D16-3362

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed September 1, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                 5
<LEGEND>                  The Schedule contains summary financial information 
                          extracted from the financial statements for         
                          Cambridge Advantaged Properties Limited Partnership 
                          and is qualified in its entirety by reference to    
                          such financial statements                           
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                     0000748847
<NAME>                    Cambridge Advantaged Properties Limited Partnership
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-25-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAR-26-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-25-1996
<CASH>                                         15,630,107    
<SECURITIES>                                   0             
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0             
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0             
<INVENTORY>                                    0             
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,272,894     
<PP&E>                                         240,858,654   
<DEPRECIATION>                                 98,449,329    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 160,312,326   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          9,264,662     
<BONDS>                                        274,352,915   
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0             
<PREFERRED>                                    0             
<COMMON>                                       0             
<OTHER-SE>                                     (123,305,215) 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   160,312,326                 
<SALES>                                        0             
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               28,483,845    
<CGS>                                          0             
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0             
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               28,339,979    
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0             
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             10,358,264    
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (10,214,398)  
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0             
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0             
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0             
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                11,513,186    
<CHANGES>                                      0             
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,298,788     
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  106           
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0             
                                               
                                               

</TABLE>
#### Jia Fu CHEN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney *775General,* Respondent.

No. 03-70011, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2004.**

Decided May 19, 2004.

Allan A. Samson, Esq., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, San Francisco, CA Emily A. Radford, Esq., Andrew M. Eschen, Esq., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

The court sua sponte changes the docket to reflect that John Ashcroft, Attorney General, is the proper respondent. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect the above caption.

**

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Jia Fu Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Because the transitional rules apply, *see Kalaw v. INS,*133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997), we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). We review for substantial evidence an adverse credibility finding and a denial of asylum and will uphold the IJ’s decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. *Malhi v. INS,*336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because Chen’s testimony was contradictory, implausible, and his demeanor was unconvincing. *See Singh-Kaur v. INS,*183 F.3d 1147, 1151-52 (9th Cir.1999). Because these inconsistencies went to the heart of Chen’s asylum claim, substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum. *See Chebchoub v. INS,*257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001).

It follows that Chen did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of deportation. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir.2000).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

***

 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.
Cecil M. DENNY, Jr., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2307

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
The following was cut off in our initial filing.                     
                                      
                                       
                  
Signature

Pursuant  to  the  requirements of the Securities Exchange  Act  of  1934,  the
registrant  has  duly  caused this report to be signed on  its  behalf  by  the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

                         NPC INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                              (Registrant)


DATE: August 6, 1997
 Vice President Finance       Troy D. Cook
 Chief Financial Officer
 Principal Financial Officer


DATE: August 6, 1997
 Corporate Controller         Alan L. Salts
 Chief Accounting Officer
 Principal Accounting Officer


                                   Exhibit 11
                             NPC INTERNATIONAL, INC.
              Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings
                                   (Unaudited)

                                                       Thirteen Weeks Ended
                                                  June 24, 1997   June 25,1996
PRIMARY
Shares outstanding at beginning of period          24,604,269       24,522,432

Weighted average of shares
issued during period                                    8,082           98,230

Assuming exercise of options and warrants
reduced by the number of shares which could
have been purchased with the proceeds from exercise   570,597          399,638

Shares outstanding for computation
of per share earnings                              25,182,948       25,020,300

Net income                                        $ 5,725,000      $ 5,522,000

Earnings per share                                $       .23      $       .22

FULLY DILUTED
Shares outstanding at beginning of period          24,604,269       24,522,432

Weighted average of shares issued
during period                                           8,082           99,230

Assuming exercise of options and warrants
reduced by the number of shares which could
have been purchased with the proceeds from exercise   618,006          399,638

Shares outstanding for computation
of per share earnings                              25,230,357       25,021,300

Net income                                        $ 5,725,000      $ 5,522,000

Earnings per share                                $       .23      $       .22
Jason TOLBERT, Appellant, v. LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2418

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 28, 2018 Rehearing Denied April 2, 2018

Jason Tolbert, pro se, Appellant.

Matthew A. Ciccio of Aldridge Pite, LLP, Delray Beach, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

*915Appellant seeks review of an order denying a motion for telephonic hearing. The order is not a final order or an appealable, non-final order. Accordingly, Appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal is granted, and the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Wetherell, Rowe, and Jay, JJ., concur.
EX PARTE Lisa ANTOINE

1151213 (2150315)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

October 14, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 201 4

- NM

- 060

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1061 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1061

  To prospectively repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military 
                                 Force.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 29, 2023

  Mr. Cardin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prospectively repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military 
                                 Force.

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

SECTION 1. PROSPECTIVE REPEAL OF 2001 AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY 
              FORCE.

    Effective on July 20, 2025, the Authorization for Use of Military 
Force (Public Law 107-40; 115 Stat. 224; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is 
repealed.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE REGISTRANT'S
QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTERS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND 1999 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY ITS REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0000746967
<NAME> DALECO RESOURCES CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         322,511
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  792,392
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,470
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,126,377
<PP&E>                                      11,971,410
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,690,697
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,307,538
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,112,204
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              160
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,026
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,430,928
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,307,538
<SALES>                                        699,136
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               812,922
<CGS>                                          679,850
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  855,078
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             100,586
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (142,742)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (142,742)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (142,742)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Consolidated  Balance  Sheet  at  March  31,  1999 and Consolidated
Statement of Operations  for  the  nine  months ended March 31, 1999, and is
qualified in its entirety  by  reference  to  such  financial  statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                        5607 
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                16631 
<ALLOWANCES>                                   428 
<INVENTORY>                                   5832 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             29241 
<PP&E>                                       35352 
<DEPRECIATION>                               22849 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               42848 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        13110 
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       481 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                   27289 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 42848 
<SALES>                                      24362 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             53731 
<CGS>                                        10661 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                25891 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                11 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             194 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                921 
<INCOME-TAX>                                   138 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            783 
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                   783 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .02 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .02 
        

</TABLE>
Rai PUNEET, Appellant, v. Suman PATEL, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1402

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 15, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Roger SUAREZ, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-4984

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 29, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gary William JONES, aka Gary W. Jones, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-10654.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2004.*

Decided May 18, 2004.

John H. Hemann, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Barry L. Morris, Esq., Hayward, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Gary William Jones appeals his sentence of 46 months imposed following his guilty plea to wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and we affirm.

Jones contends that the district court relied upon improper factors in departing upward based on its finding that Jones’s criminal history was under-represented pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines § 4A1.3. Reviewing *de novo, see United States v. Phillips,*356 F.3d 1086, 1099 (9th Cir.2004), we conclude that the *204district court properly determined that Jones’s criminal history category of IV significantly under-represented the seriousness of his criminal history and the likelihood of recidivism. *See United States v. Connelly,*156 F.3d 978, 983-85 (9th Cir.1998). Thus, the district court’s decision to depart was appropriate. *See id.*at 984-85.

Jones further contends that the extent of the departure by the district court was unreasonable. We disagree. Jones’s long history of fraudulent conduct is atypical as compared with other defendants in category IV. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in departing two levels to category VI. *See United States v. Goshea,*94 F.3d 1361, 1365 (9th Cir.1996).

AFFIRMED.

**

 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.