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

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     This  certification  is being filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002.  This
certification  is  included  solely  for  the  purpose  of  complying  with  the
provisions  of Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act and is not to be used for
any other purpose.  In connection  with the  accompanying  Annual Report on Form
10-KSB of Rub A Dub  Soap,  Inc.  for the year  ended  May 31,  2006,  I, Pam J.
Halter,  hereby  certifies in my capacity as an officer of Rub A Dub Soap,  Inc.
that to my knowledge:

     1.   The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Rub A Dub Soap,  Inc. for the year
          ended May 31, 2006,  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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Rub A
          Dub Soap, Inc. for the year ended May 31, 2007,  fairly  presents,  in
          all  material  respects,   the  financial  condition  and  results  of
          operations of Rub A Dub Soap, Inc.

Date:    July 3, 2007              /s/ Pam J. Halter
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Pam J. Halter, Vice President and Principal
                                     Financial and Accounting Officer
#### Thomas EDISON, Petitioner, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

No. 10-11972.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Sept. 30, 2011.

*753Scott Eric Bratton, Margaret Wong & Associates Co., LPA, Cleveland, OH, Thomas Edison, FCI Beaumont Medium-Inmate Mail, Beaumont, TX, for Petitioner.

Andrew N. O’Malley, David Bernal, Ye-didya Cohen, U.S. Dept of Justice, EOIR, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Anthony Cardozo Payne, Krystal Samuels, U.S. Department of Justice-Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Alfie Owens, DHS Chief Counsel, Atlanta, GA, for Respondent.

Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, CARNES, Circuit Judge, and SANDS,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable W. Louis Sands, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Georgia, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

This case comes before us on petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming an immigration judge’s denial of the petitioner’s application for withholding of removal. (The petitioner does not challenge the denial of his applications for asylum or for relief under Article III of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.)

Because the parties are well aware of the facts, we will not belabor them, except to say that there was no adverse credibility finding, and according to the petitioner he suffered over the years from a long string of attacks, physical beatings, and the destruction of his house by arson. The physical attacks included one in which he was cut with a knife and another in which he was kicked in the head and beaten so severely that his leg was broken and he had to be hospitalized.

The BIA’s decision that the level and extent of violence and injuries that the petitioner suffered did not rise to the level of past persecution is inconsistent with our decision in *Mejia v. United, States Attorney General,*498 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir.2007). For that reason, we must vacate the BIA’s decision and remand for further proceedings that take as a given that the petitioner suffered persecution at the time alleged in his application. Because past persecution on account of a statutorily protected ground has been established, Edison “is presumed to have a well-founded fear of future persecution.” *Id.*at 1257. To rebut that presumption, “the burden shifts to the government to show both that (1) relocation is possible within [Indonesia], and (2) it is reasonable to expect *754[Edison] to relocate.” *Delgado v. United States Att’y Gen.,*487 F.3d 855, 861 n. 4 (11th Cir.2007). Because the BIA determined that Edison had not shown past persecution, it did not address the presumption of future persecution, and we remand for it to make a determination on that issue.

The order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of the petition for withholding of removal is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA NO. DA 21-0360
ELGIN FABER and COLLEEN FABER, Appellants/Cross-Appellees,-vsKEITH RATY, COLLEE N RATY, et al, Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

________________________ ______________________ ___________________

. ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME FOR COURT REPORTER TO FILE TRANSCRIPTS ON APPEAL Pursuant to unopposed moti on, and good cause appearing; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that C ourt Reporter, Cindy Prindiville, is granted an additional 50 days from Novemb er 4, 2021, that is, until December 24, 2021, to file her transcripts on appeal. DATED _____________________________.

___________________________
_____________

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 8 2021

11/08/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0360
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>    1,000

<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                    OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                      MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                  1,312
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                             705
<ALLOWANCES>                               46
<INVENTORY>                             1,264
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        3,569
<PP&E>                                  6,068
<DEPRECIATION>                          4,630
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          5,006
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   1,339
<BONDS>                                     0
<COMMON>                                  431
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                              3,228
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            5,006
<SALES>                                 3,469
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        3,469
<CGS>                                   2,208
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           3,313
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           196
<INCOME-TAX>                               68
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       128
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                              128
<EPS-BASIC>                             .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                             .04


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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000714909
<NAME> 82I
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          53,265
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   50,790
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               104,055
<PP&E>                                       9,884,681
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,005,775
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 982,961
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,072
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     960,889
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   982,961
<SALES>                                        307,555
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               311,134
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  402,914
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (91,780)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (91,780)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (91,780)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (17.87)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J OE Y D E S HA UN C L AR K, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 09- 10089 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 7 - C R - 0 0 0 7 7 - P MP ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da P hi l i p M . P r o, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A pr i l5, 2010 ** B e f o r e : R Y M E R , M c K E O W N , a n dP A E Z , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . J o e yD e s h au n C larkap p e a ls f r o m h is g u ilty - p le ac o n v ic tio n a n d7 0 - m o n th s e n te n c e f

o rb e in g af

e lo n in p o s s e s s io n o f

af ir e a rm , in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . 

# FI LED APR21 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 10089 2 §§ 922( g) ( 1) & 924( a ) ( 2) . P ur s ua ntt o A n de rs v . Ca lifo rn ia , 38 6 U . S . 73 8 (19 67 ), C l a rk’ s c ouns e l ha s f

i l e d abr i e f

s t a t i ng the r e a r e no gr ounds f orr e l i e f , a l ong w i th a m ot i on t o w i thdr a w a s c ouns e l of r e c or d. W e ha ve pr ovi de d the appe l l a ntw i th the op po rtun i ty t o fi l e apro se s up pl em ent albri ef . C l ark’ s l ett er , re ce i ved o n M ar ch 1 0 , 2 0 1 0 , is d e e m e df

ile d . W e c o n s tru e th e le tte ra s ap r o s e s up p le m e n ta l b r ie f . N o a n s w e r in g b r ie f

h a s b e e n f

ile d . O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c or d pur s ua ntt o P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U . S. 7 5 , 8 0 - 8 1 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , d is c lo s e s n o a r g u ab le g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. A cco rd i n g l y, co u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s GR AN T E D, the di stri ct co u rt ’ s j u d g m en ti s AF F I RME D.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6235

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

YVETTE GAINES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis III, Senior

District Judge. (1:07-cr-00070-TSE-3; 1:09-cv-01238-TSE)

Submitted: August 26, 2010 Decided: September 1, 2010

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Yvette Gaines, Appellant Pro Se. Erin Marie Velandy, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Yvette Gaines seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion

as untimely and the court’s order denying a certificate of 

appealability. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will 

not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Gaines has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
#### Albert Lee STEVENSON, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. Butch JACKSON, Superintendent, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 08-8208.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 17, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 13, 2009.

Albert Lee Stevenson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Albert Lee Stevenson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the *816constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stevenson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 676 

To amend the Act of June 18, 1934, to reaffirm the authority of the 

Secretary of the Interior to take land into trust for Indian tribes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 30, 2011 

Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. FRANKEN, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. 

JOHNSON of South Dakota, Mr. KERRY, Mr. TESTER, and Mr. UDALL

of New Mexico) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Act of June 18, 1934, to reaffirm the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to take land into 

trust for Indian tribes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION. 

4 (a) MODIFICATION.— 

5 (1) IN GENERAL.—The first sentence of section 

6 19 of the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly known 

7 as the ‘‘Indian Reorganization Act’’) (25 U.S.C. 

8 479), is amended— 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 676 IS

1 (A) by striking ‘‘The term’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘Effective beginning on June 18, 1934, the 

3 term’’; and 

4 (B) by striking ‘‘any recognized Indian 

5 tribe now under Federal jurisdiction’’ and in6 serting ‘‘any federally recognized Indian tribe’’. 

7 (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made 

8 by paragraph (1) shall take effect as if included in 

9 the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly known as the 

10 ‘‘Indian Reorganization Act’’) (25 U.S.C. 479), on 

11 the date of enactment of that Act. 

12 (b) RATIFICATION AND CONFIRMATION OF PRIOR

13 ACTIONS.—Any action taken by the Secretary of the Inte14 rior pursuant to the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly 

15 known as the ‘‘Indian Reorganization Act’’) (25 U.S.C. 

16 461 et seq.), for any Indian tribe that was federally recog17 nized on the date of that action is ratified and confirmed, 

18 to the extent that the action is challenged based on the 

19 question of whether the Indian tribe was federally recog20 nized or under Federal jurisdiction on June 18, 1934, as 

21 if the action had, by prior act of Congress, been specifi22 cally authorized and directed. 

23 (c) EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.— 

24 (1) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this Act or the 

25 amendments made by this Act affects— 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 676 IS

1 (A) the application or effect of any Federal 

2 law other than the Act of June 18, 1934 (25 

3 U.S.C. 461 et seq.) (as amended by subsection 

4 (a)); or 

5 (B) any limitation on the authority of the 

6 Secretary of the Interior under any Federal law 

7 or regulation other than the Act of June 18, 

8 1934 (25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.) (as so amended). 

9 (2) REFERENCES IN OTHER LAWS.—An express 

10 reference to the Act of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 

11 461 et seq.), contained in any other Federal law 

12 shall be considered to be a reference to that Act as 

13 amended by subsection (a). 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit
32.2


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of Eddie Vakser (the “Company”) on Form
10-KSB/A for the period ended    December 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Michael D. Fowler, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(3)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





(4)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.











Dated: January
      14, 2009
              
              
              
              By:
              
              /s/ Eddie VakserEddie
      Vakser
                Chief
      Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In
connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Syniverse Holdings, Inc. and Syniverse Technologies, Inc. (the Companies) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the Report), I, Tony G. Holcombe, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify 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 Companies.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |  |  |                                         
|------------------------ |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------
|Dated: February 27, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/    TONY G. HOLCOMBE                 
|                         |  |  |  | Tony G. Holcombe Chief Executive Officer

The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 30, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 34844]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13902]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Agency Information Collection Activity: Interest Rate Reduction 
Refinancing Loan; Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA)

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is correcting a Notice 
that published in the Federal Register on March 10, 2021 under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maribel Aponte, Office of Enterprise 
and Integration, Data Governance Analytics (008), 1717 H Street NW, 
Washington, DC 20006, (202) 266-4688 or email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b0ddd1c2d9d2d5dc9ed1c0dfdec4d5f0c6d19ed7dfc6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7c111d0e151e1910521d0c131208193c0a1d521b130a">[email protected]</span></a>. 
Please refer to ``OMB Control No. 2900-0386'' in any correspondence.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On Wednesday, March 10, 2021, at 86 FR 
13789, VA published a Notice which VA Form 26-8923 is used to determine 
Veterans eligible for an exception to pay a funding fee in connection 
with a VA-guaranteed loan. Lenders are required to complete VA Form 26-
8923 on all interest rate reduction refinancing loans and submit the 
form to the Veteran no later than the third business day after 
receiving the Veteran's application.

Correction

    The abstract is corrected to state the following:
    The major use of this form is to determine the maximum permissible 
loan amount for interest rate reduction refinancing loans. Lenders are 
required to complete VA Form 26-8923, Interest Rate Reduction 
Refinancing Loan Worksheet, on all interest rate reduction refinancing 
loans and submit the form in the loan file when selected by VA for 
quality review.

    Dated: June 24, 2021.
Dorothy Glasgow,
VA PRA Clearance Officer, (Alternate), Office of Enterprise and 
Integration/Data Governance Analytics, Department of Veterans Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2021-13902 Filed 6-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>