alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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
 Weed and Insect Biology Research: Fargo, ND
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Fargo, North Dakota Edward T. Schafer Agricultural Research Center Weed and Insect Biology Research People & Locations







Melanie  Tischleder
                        Weed and Insect Biology Research

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Lab Technician
                        Phone: (701) 239-1287
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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
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

I, Andrew Hamer, Chief Financial Officer of Keynote Systems, Inc. (the Company), do hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2006 (the
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented
therein.
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 10, 2006



|                                                                                 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                 
|/s/ ANDREW HAMER                                                                 
|Andrew Hamer Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Keynote Systems,
Inc. and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request
#### Henry Vargas, Appellant, v "Jane” Fitzgerald et al., Defendants, and Varsity Transit, Inc., Respondent.

—In a defamation action, plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buschmann, J.), dated March 28, 1984, as, upon the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to the motion of defendant Varsity Transit, Inc., denied plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to amend the complaint following discovery. The appeal brings up for review an order of the same court dated July 27, 1984, which denied plaintiff’s motion, which was, in effecte for renewal.

Order dated March 28, 1984, affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, for reasons stated by the late Justice Buschmann at Special Term.

Order dated July 27, 1984, affirmed, without costs or disbursements. No opinion. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1443

To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on a chemical.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 7, 1997

Mr. HELMS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on a chemical.

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

3 SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

4 Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tar5 iff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting

6 in numerical sequence the following new item:

‘‘ 9902.32.22 6-Bromo2,4,Dinitroaniline

(CAS No. 1817–73–

8) (provided for in

subheading

2921.42.90.00) ........ Free No change No change On or before

12/31/2000 ’’.
2

•S 1443 IS

1 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

2 The amendment made by section 1 applies with re3 spect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for

4 consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of

5 enactment of this Act.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheets and statements of operations found on pages 2 and 3 of the
Company's Form 10-QSB for the nine months ended February 28, 1999, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                         274,299
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,492,273
<ALLOWANCES>                                   685,430
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,517,191
<PP&E>                                       3,440,229
<DEPRECIATION>                                 200,778
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,430,103
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,274,928
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,142,676
<OTHER-SE>                                     852,523
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,430,103
<SALES>                                     10,480,252
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,480,252
<CGS>                                        6,943,947
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,943,947
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,671,383
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             366,165
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,461,238)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (540,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (921,238)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (921,238)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.02)


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60545

Summary Calendar

MISIKIR GETACHEW TESFAYE,

Petitioner

v.

LORETTA LYNCH, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A205 679 429

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Misikir Getachew Tesfaye, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for 

review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing 

his appeal from the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). With 

respect to his asylum and withholding-of-removal claims, Tesfaye challenges 

the immigration judge’s finding that his testimony was not credible, but he 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 3, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60545 Document: 00513819607 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/03/2017
No. 15-60545

2

fails to show that it is plain from the totality of the circumstances that “no 

reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Wang

v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 538 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). While he also challenges the finding that he did not establish 

his eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal, Tesfaye fails to show that 

“any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 

2006).

In addition, Tesfaye also challenges the adverse credibility 

determination in the context of his CAT claim. Again, he has not shown that 

“any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 

§ 1252(b)(4)(B). Although Tesfaye challenges the denial of CAT protection on 

the ground that the ruling erroneously rests on an adverse credibility 

determination from the asylum context, the adverse credibility assessment 

here goes directly to the issue whether Tesfaye is likely to be tortured in 

Ethiopia. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 907-08 (5th Cir. 2002). Tesfaye’s 

challenge to the denial of CAT protection fails because he does not show that 

any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to find that it is more likely 

than not that he would be tortured if removed to Ethiopia. See § 1252(b)(4)(B); 

see Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344-45 (5th Cir. 2005).

PETITION DENIED.

 Case: 15-60545 Document: 00513819607 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/03/2017
#### Catherine Francavilla, Appellant, v Francine Doyno et al., Respondents.

[945 NYS2d 425]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), dated June 15, 2011, which denied her motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability is granted.

*715“A driver who fails to yield the right of way after stopping at a stop sign controlling traffic is in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 (a) and is negligent as a matter of law” *(Laino v Lucchese,*35 AD3d 672, 672 [2006]; *see Gergis v Miccio,*39 AD3d 468, 468 [2007]). *“A*driver is required to see what is there to be seen, and a driver who has the right of way is entitled to anticipate that the other motorist will obey the traffic law requiring him or her to yield” *(Laino v Lucchese,*35 AD3d at 672-673 [citations omitted]; *see Gergis v Miccio,*39 AD3d at 468; *Bongiovi v Hoffman,*18 AD3d 686, 687 [2005]).

Here, the plaintiff established, prima facie, her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the defendant Francine Doyno, who was faced with a stop sign at an intersection, negligently drove her vehicle into the intersection in which the plaintiff was traveling in her vehicle without yielding the right-of-way to the plaintiff, and that this was the sole proximate cause of the accident *{see*Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 [a]). In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The defendants’ contention that the plaintiff may have been negligent in the operation of her vehicle is unsupported by the record and is based upon mere speculation *(see Exime v Williams,*45 AD3d 633, 634 [2007]; *Bongiovi v Hoffman,*18 AD3d at 687; *Williams v Econ,*221 AD2d 429, 430 [1995]). Accordingly, the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability should have been granted. Angiolillo, J.P., Eng, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Petitioner, v Catherine Nugent Panepinto, J.S.C., et al., Respondents.

[945 NYS2d 883]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department pursuant to CPLR 506 [b] [1]) to prohibit enforcement of an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County, dated December 21, 2011.

Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation of discontinuance signed by the attorneys for the parties on April 26, 2012,

It is hereby ordered that said proceeding is unanimously dismissed without costs upon stipulation. Present — Centra, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Garni and Sconiers, JJ.
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1297

To redesignate Washington National Airport as ‘‘Ronald Reagan Washington

National Airport’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 20, 1997

Mr. COVERDELL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To redesignate Washington National Airport as ‘‘Ronald

Reagan Washington National Airport’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

4 The airport located in Alexandria, Virginia, and

5 known as Washington National Airport, shall be known

6 and designated as ‘‘Ronald Reagan Washington National

7 Airport’’.

8 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

9 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

10 paper, or other record of the United States to the airport
2

•S 1297 IS

1 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

2 to ‘‘Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport’’.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6071

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SHAWN RHONDU SMITHWICK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (5:06-cr-00121-F-1; 5:08-cv-00538-F)

Submitted: April 13, 2010 Decided: May 12, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit 

Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shawn Rhondu Smithwick, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, 

Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Shawn Rhondu Smithwick seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is 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). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional 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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smithwick

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
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 265 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 265

        Honoring the lifetime achievements of E. Thom Rumberger.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 13, 2011

    Mr. Nelson of Florida (for himself and Mr. Rubio) submitted the 
        following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
        Honoring the lifetime achievements of E. Thom Rumberger.

Whereas E. Thom Rumberger served in the United States Marine Corps;
Whereas Thom Rumberger earned a bachelor's degree, with honors, and a J.D. from 
        the University of Florida;
Whereas Thom Rumberger was a founding partner of the law firm Rumberger, Kirk & 
        Caldwell, which has represented multinational corporations such as 
        American Airlines, Inc., Sears, Roebuck and Co., and Toyota Motor 
        Corporation;
Whereas Thom Rumberger was listed in Florida Super Lawyers every year from 2007 
        to 2010;
Whereas Thom Rumberger was appointed Circuit Judge in the 18th Judicial Circuit 
        of Florida in 1969;
Whereas Thom Rumberger committed himself to numerous acts of public service, 
        including serving on the Federal Judicial Advisory Commission of Florida 
        and the Board of Supervisors of the Spaceport Florida Authority;
Whereas Thom Rumberger was one of the most steadfast champions of the Everglades 
        in Florida;
Whereas Thom Rumberger served as lead counsel for the Everglades Foundation 
        since 1999;
Whereas Thom Rumberger was instrumental in the passage of 2 amendments to the 
        Florida Constitution and of section 601 of the Water Resources 
        Development Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-541; 114 Stat. 2680), known as 
        the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan;
Whereas Thom Rumberger was instrumental in obtaining several billion dollars in 
        funding for Everglades restoration; and
Whereas Thom Rumberger served on the Florida Governor's 2001 Select Task Force 
        on Elections and the 2002 Select Task Force on Election Procedures, 
        Standards and Technology, and was Chairman of the Legislature's Study 
        Committee on Public Records in 2002: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) recognizes and honors the professional success of E. 
        Thom Rumberger; and
            (2) recognizes and honors the lifelong dedication of Thom 
        Rumberger to the protection of the Florida Everglades.
                                 <all>
```
Case: 1:03-cv-03373 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/21/03 Page 1 of 20 PageID #:1

Case: 1:03-cv-03373 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/21/03 Page 2 of 20 PageID #:2

Case: 1:03-cv-03373 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/21/03 Page 3 of 20 PageID #:3

Case: 1:03-cv-03373 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/21/03 Page 4 of 20 PageID #:4

Case: 1:03-cv-03373 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/21/03 Page 5 of 20 PageID #:5

Case: 1:03-cv-03373 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/21/03 Page 6 of 20 PageID #:6

Case: 1:03-cv-03373 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/21/03 Page 7 of 20 PageID #:7

Case: 1:03-cv-03373 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/21/03 Page 8 of 20 PageID #:8

Case: 1:03-cv-03373 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/21/03 Page 9 of 20 PageID #:9

Case: 1:03-cv-03373 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/21/03 Page 10 of 20 PageID #:10

Case: 1:03-cv-03373 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/21/03 Page 11 of 20 PageID #:11

Case: 1:03-cv-03373 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/21/03 Page 12 of 20 PageID #:12

Case: 1:03-cv-03373 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/21/03 Page 13 of 20 PageID #:13

Case: 1:03-cv-03373 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/21/03 Page 14 of 20 PageID #:14

Case: 1:03-cv-03373 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/21/03 Page 15 of 20 PageID #:15

Case: 1:03-cv-03373 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/21/03 Page 16 of 20 PageID #:16

Case: 1:03-cv-03373 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/21/03 Page 17 of 20 PageID #:17

Case: 1:03-cv-03373 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/21/03 Page 18 of 20 PageID #:18

Case: 1:03-cv-03373 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/21/03 Page 19 of 20 PageID #:19

Case: 1:03-cv-03373 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/21/03 Page 20 of 20 PageID #:20
### NUMBER 13

- 13

- 00582

- CV



## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

CITY OF WAELDER, TEXAS , Appellant,

v.

LARRY STAMPS , Appellee.

On Appeal from the 2 5 th District Court of Gonzales County, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Garza , Benavides, and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

This appeal was abated by this Court on February 10, 2014 pursuant to an agreed

motion to abate the appeal for purposes of settlement. This cause is now before the

Court on appellant ’ s agreed motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that the parties

have resolved the issues before the Court and no longer wish to pursue the litigation. By

agreement, the parties request that this Court dismiss the appeal . Accordingly, this caseis hereby REINSTATED.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant ’ s agreed motion

to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P . 42.1(a). Appellant ’ s motion t o dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby

DISMISSED. Costs will be taxed against appellant. See id. R. 42.1(d) ("Absent

agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having

dismissed the appeal at appellant ’ s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained,

and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 17 th day of April

, 2014

.