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

EXHIBIT 13.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 
  Title 18, United States Code, Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to 
  Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Barrie Barraclough, Chief Financial Officer of Apiva Ventures
  Limited ("Apiva"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
  of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of my knowledge:

|1. | The Annual Report on Form 20-F of Apiva for the
        year ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
        of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
        78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
        in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
        of Apiva.                                                                                             



|                  | /s/ Barrie Barraclough 
|----------------- | -----------------------
|Vancouver, Canada | Barrie Barraclough     
|July 30, 2004     | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
  906 has been provided to Apiva and will be retained by Apiva and furnished to
  the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 130 Filed: 07/11/06 Page 1 of 22 PageID #:1033
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 130 Filed: 07/11/06 Page 2 of 22 PageID #:1034
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 130 Filed: 07/11/06 Page 3 of 22 PageID #:1035
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 130 Filed: 07/11/06 Page 4 of 22 PageID #:1036
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 130 Filed: 07/11/06 Page 5 of 22 PageID #:1037
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 130 Filed: 07/11/06 Page 6 of 22 PageID #:1038
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 130 Filed: 07/11/06 Page 7 of 22 PageID #:1039
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 130 Filed: 07/11/06 Page 8 of 22 PageID #:1040
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 130 Filed: 07/11/06 Page 9 of 22 PageID #:1041
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 130 Filed: 07/11/06 Page 10 of 22 PageID #:1042
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 130 Filed: 07/11/06 Page 11 of 22 PageID #:1043
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 130 Filed: 07/11/06 Page 12 of 22 PageID #:1044
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 130 Filed: 07/11/06 Page 13 of 22 PageID #:1045
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 130 Filed: 07/11/06 Page 14 of 22 PageID #:1046
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 130 Filed: 07/11/06 Page 15 of 22 PageID #:1047
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 130 Filed: 07/11/06 Page 16 of 22 PageID #:1048
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 130 Filed: 07/11/06 Page 17 of 22 PageID #:1049
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 130 Filed: 07/11/06 Page 18 of 22 PageID #:1050
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 130 Filed: 07/11/06 Page 19 of 22 PageID #:1051
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 130 Filed: 07/11/06 Page 20 of 22 PageID #:1052
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 130 Filed: 07/11/06 Page 21 of 22 PageID #:1053
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 130 Filed: 07/11/06 Page 22 of 22 PageID #:1054
#### In the Matter of Leon Friedman, an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner.

— Motion by respondent in which petitioner joins in support thereof, to confirm the report of the Special Referee, dated August 30, 1985, which finds that the petition is based on the fact that the respondent had been found guilty of a charge of menacing. The respondent submitted proof that the conviction has been reversed and the matter has been adjourned in contemplation of dismissal. The petitioner has withdrawn the petition and the charge should be dismissed.

The court confirms and adopts the Special Referee’s report. The charge against the respondent, Leon Friedman, is dismissed. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano, Gibbons and Thompson, JJ., concur.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Carl Hayden Bee Research Center: Tucson, AZ
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Information
                        Africanized Honey Bees
                                    Bee Safety
                                    Online Books
                                    Other NewsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Tucson, Arizona Carl Hayden Bee Research Center Research Grand Challenge Synergy Project





- Cold Storage Overview
- Why put colonies in cold storage to overwinter?
- When to put colonies in cold storage?
- Which colonies to put into cold storage?
- Cold Storage Overwintering Tool
- Overview
- Objective 1: Climate effects on bloom and floral rewards
- Objective 2. Landscape level nutrition models
- Objective 3: Determine pollinator number, diversity and pathogen load
- Objective 4: Develop a management plan for overwintering colonies in cold storage
- Outcomes
- Varroa Overview
- Varroa mite life cycle and reproduction
- Varroosis
- How to Monitor, Sample, and Treat for Varroa
- Current Research: Mite Migration
- Introduction
- BEEPOP+ Model

Objective 4: Develop a management plan for overwintering colonies in cold storageheadline bar Team lead: Dr. Gloria DeGrandi-Hoffman /ARSUserFiles/20220500/images/5c.png


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Fida, Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 764]

Appeal from an order of the Onondaga County Court (William D. Walsh, J.), entered September 2, 2009 pursuant to the 2004 Drug Law Reform Act. The order denied defendant’s application to be resentenced upon defendant’s 1989 conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law and the matter is remitted to Onondaga County Court for further proceedings.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order denying his application for resentencing under the 2004 Drug Law Reform Act ([DLRA-1] L 2004, ch 738, § 23). We agree with defendant that County Court erred in determining that he was ineligible for resentencing because he had previously been released on parole and was incarcerated for a parole violation at the time of his application *(see People v Caban,*84 AD3d 828 [2011]). As the Court of Appeals has noted with respect to the 2009 Drug Law Reform Act *(see*CPL 440.46), although “many parole violators have shown by their conduct that they do not deserve relief from their sentences[,] . . . courts can deny their resentencing *1579applications ... if ‘substantial justice dictates that the application should be denied’ ” *(People v Paulin,*17 NY3d 238, 244 [2011], quoting L 2004, ch 738, § 23; *see Caban,*84 AD3d 828). We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to County Court for further proceedings on defendant’s application for resentencing pursuant to DLRA-1. Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Carni, Lindley and Martoche, JJ.
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

__________________________ GEORGE A. BENAVIDES , Claimant

- Appellant,

v. Eric K. S hinseki , SECRETARY OF VETER ANS AFFAIRS, Respondent

- Appellee.

__________________________ 201 3-7 066

__________________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 11

- 22 75 , Judge William A. Moo rman .

__________________________ ON MOTION

__________________________ O R D E R Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, moves for a 15

- day extension of time , until Ma y 28 , 201 3 , to file its response brief. George A. Benavides opposes. Upon consideration thereof, Case: 13-7066 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 05/22/2013GEORGE BENAVIDES V . SHINSEKI 2
I T I S O RDERED T HAT : The motion is granted

. F OR T HE C OURT /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk
s 21 Case: 13-7066 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 05/22/2013
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Juan R. Martinez, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Potoker, J.), rendered April 5, 1984, as convicted him of manslaughter in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposed sentence on that count of 4 to 12 years’ imprisonment.

Judgment modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the aforenoted sentence to a term of imprisonment of 3 to 9 years. As so modified, judgment affirmed, insofar as appealed from.

The evidence adduced at trial, including the admissions contained in defendant’s videotaped statements to the law enforcement authorities, was sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to conclude that defendant committed the crime of manslaughter in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.15 [1]; § 15.05 [3]; *People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620; *see, People v Licitra,*47 NY2d 554, *rearg denied*53 NY2d 938).

*876Under the circumstances of this case, the sentence was excessive to the extent indicated. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION * IN THE 

OF MARYLAND * COURT OF APPEALS 

200 Harry S. Truman Pkwy, Ste. 300 * OF MARYLAND 

Annapolis, MD 21401 * 

Petitioner, 

V. 

JONATHAN KENNETH FRIEDLANDER 

• Misc. Docket AG 

• No. 79 

• September Term, 2016 

Respondent. 

*********************************************** 

ORDER 

Upon consideration of the Joint Petition for Disbarment by Consent, filed herein pursuant to 

Maryland Rule 19-736, and Respondent's acknowledgment therein that sufficient evidence exists 

to sustain allegations that he committed professional misconduct in violation of former Maryland 

Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15(a), 8.4(a) and (d), former Maryland Rules 16-

606.1 and 16-607, in effect at the time of the conduct, and Business Occupations and Professions 

Article § 10-306, it is this 12th day of .TAnlipryi 20 17, 

ORDERED, that Respondent, Jonathan Kenneth Friedlander, be and hereby is Disbarred 

from the practice of law in this State, effective immediately; and it is further 

ORDERED, that, the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of Jonathan Kenneth 

Friedlander from the register of attorneys in the Court, notify Respondent of the filing of this 

Order in accordance with Maryland Rule 19-742(a)(I), and comply with the notice provisions set 

for the in Maryland Rule 19-761(b). 

/s/ Clayton Greene Jr. 

Senior Judge 

EAST\ 138867406.1
Case: 1:03-cv-04954 Document #: 234 Filed: 12/06/04 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1905
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 7**  **204**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. WADDELL G. GIBBS , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Di strict of Virginia , at Richmond
. Robert E. Payne , Senior District Judge. ( 3:07

- cr - 00233

- REP

- 1; 3:09

- cv - 00268

- REP )

Submitted : November 18, 2010 Decided: December 2, 2010

Before SHEDD and A GEE , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Waddell G. Gibbs , Appellant Pro Se. Jessica Aber Brumberg, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURI AM: Waddell G. Gibbs seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2010 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1 ) (200 6 ). 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) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by dem onstrating 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 in dependently reviewed the record and conclude that Gibbs 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 materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,477
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (125)
<INVENTORY>                                     22,332
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,389
<PP&E>                                           1,499
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,298
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 189,963
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           57,704
<BONDS>                                        100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,585
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   189,963
<SALES>                                        144,593
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               144,593
<CGS>                                          121,240
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,581
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (12)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   265
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,627
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (10,843)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (10,843)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (10,843)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Case 09-49540 Doc 2 Filed 12/31/09 Entered 12/31/09 11:17:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-11-0000388 30-JAN-2014 08:05 AM
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED

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



In connection with the annual report of Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ JOSEPH R. TOMKINSON
|Joseph R. Tomkinson    
|Chief Executive Officer



October 13, 2004



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ RICHARD J. JOHNSON 
|Richard J. Johnson     
|Chief Financial Officer



October 13, 2004



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 140 (Monday, July 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 40086]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15908]


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

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Thursday, July 22, 2021.

PLACE: Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, the meeting will be open to the 
public via live webcast only. Visit the agency's homepage 
(www.ncua.gov) and access the provided webcast link.

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 
    1. Request for Information and Comment, Digital Assets and Related 
Technologies.
    2. NCUA Rules and Regulations, Complex Credit Union Leverage Ratio.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks, 
Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304.

Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2021-15908 Filed 7-22-21; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporationby reference in Registration Statement No. 333-17331 on Form S-8 pertaining to the Broadway Financial Corporation Stock Option Plan for Outside Directors and the Broadway Financial Corporation Long Term Incentive Plan, Registration StatementNo. 333-102138 on Form S-8 pertaining to the Broadway Financial Corporation Long Term Incentive Plan, and Registration Statement No. 333-163150 on Form S-8 pertaining to the Broadway Financial Corporation 2008 Long-Term Incentive Plan ofour report dated April 13, 2011 on the consolidated financial statements of Broadway Financial Corporation and subsidiaries, which report is included in Form 10-K for Broadway Financial Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2010.

/s/ Crowe Horwath LLP 

Costa Mesa, California 

April 14, 2011
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1027

YILMA MEKONNEN G TSADIK,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals. (A97-933-047)

Submitted: July 31, 2006 Decided: August 10, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Solomon Bekele, LAW OFFICE OF SOLOMON & ASSOCIATES, Silver Spring,

Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney

General, James Hunolt, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Teresa T.

Milton, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Yilma Mekonnen G Tsadik, a native and citizen of

Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s

denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and

protection under the Convention Against Torture.

In his petition for review, Tsadik challenges the

determination that he failed to establish his eligibility for

asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility

for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was

so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the

requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.

478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and

conclude that Tsadik fails to show that the evidence compels a

contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that he

seeks.

Additionally, we uphold the denial of Tsadik’s request

for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for

withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even though the

facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who is

ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of

removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft, 378

F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Tsadik failed to show that
- 3 -

he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for

withholding of removal.

Tsadik also failed to meet the standard for relief under

the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such relief, an

applicant must establish that “it is more likely than not that he

or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of

removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2006). Tsadik failed to make

such a showing before the immigration court. 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED