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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [FRL-6581-5] 

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency. 

# ACTION:

Notice of proposed settlement. 

# SUMMARY:

The United States Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to enter into a settlement for the reimbursement of all past response costs with Greenville County pursuant to section 122 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9622(h)(1) concerning the Blackberry Valley Drum Superfund Site (Site) located in Greenville, Greenville County, South Carolina. EPA will consider public comments on the proposed settlement for thirty (30) days. EPA may withdraw from or modify the proposed settlement should such comments disclose facts or considerations which indicate the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper or inadequate. Copies of the proposed settlement are available from: Ms. Paula V. Batchelor, U.S. EPA, Region 4, (WMD-CPSB) 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, (404) 562-8887. 

Written comments may be submitted to Ms. Batchelor within 30 calendar days of the date of this publication. 

Dated: March 31, 2000. 

James T. Miller, 

Acting Chief, CERCLA Program Services Branch, Waste Management Division. 

[FR Doc. 00-9658 Filed 4-17-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
**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 Quarterly Report of Westell Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on their 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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report. 

 

 

/s/ BERNARD F. SERGESKETTER

Bernard F. Sergesketter

November 10, 2008

 

/s/AMY T. FORSTER

Amy T. Forster

November 10, 2008

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Westell Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Westell Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-Q.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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

 

I, Tim Paterson-Brown, Chief Executive Officer of MGTCapital Investments, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to thebest of my knowledge:

 

(1)                             the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly periodended March 31, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

(2)                             the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|              | By:    | /s/ TIM PATERSON-BROWN  |
|-------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|              |   | Tim Paterson-Brown      |
|              |   | Chief Executive Officer |
| May 15, 2009 |   |                    |

 

----
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 60459 Summary Calendar

**David Diaz**

**- Barriga,** 

Petitioner **,**

versus
**Merrick Garland,** U.S. Attorney General **,** Respondent

**.**

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A208 549 799

Before **King, Smith,** and **Wilson,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

David Diaz

- Barriga , a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Con vention Against Torture

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumsta nces set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 12, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-60459 Document: 00515859034 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/12/2021No. 20

- 60459

2 (CAT). Diaz

- Barriga asserts generally that the IJ erred by determining that he had not established a well

- founded fear of future persecution based on a protected ground (i.e., his political opinion) and that he had not shown that he would be tortured by, or with the acquiescence of, the Mexican government if he returned to Mexico.

We review the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo. Lopez

- Gomez v. Ashcroft , 2 63 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). The substantial

- evidence standard applies to review of decisions denying withholding of removal and relief under the CAT

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

. Under this standard, “this court may not ov erturn the BIA’s factual findings unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Gomez

- Palacios v. Holder , 560 F.3d 354, 358 (5th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted)

. Regarding a well

- founded fear of future persecution necessary to establish withholding of removal , Diaz

- Barriga testified that he is not politically active in Mexico and that he was attacked and robbed by two unknown individuals, who mentioned nothing regarding his political opinion during the attack. Thus, the IJ’s conclusion that there w as a lack of nexus between the alleged persecution and the protected ground is supported by substantial evidence. See Carbajal

- Gonzalez v. INS , 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996) ; see also 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(2)

. Further, b ecause Diaz

- Barriga’s claim that he will be tortured if he returns to Mexico is entirely baseless, t he record does not compel the conclusion that he will, more likely than not, be subjected to torture if removed to Mexico

. See Bah v. Ashcroft , 341 F.3d 348,
351

- 52 (5th Cir. 2 003) ; see also 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1). Accordingly, the petition for review is **DENIED**

. Case: 20-60459 Document: 00515859034 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/12/2021
#### In the Matter of Larry Williams, Appellant, v Robert I. Henderson, as Superintendent of Auburn Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Memorandum: The issues raised by relator on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus have previously been reviewed and decided. His claim that his conviction for murder in the second degree resulted from the admission of evidence obtained in violation of his right to counsel was raised on direct appeal and found to be without merit *(People v Williams,*91 AD2d 1173, *lv denied*59 NY2d 680). His claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at various stages of the proceedings against him was previously resolved on relator’s motion to vacate judgment under CPL 440.10. Leave to appeal to this court was denied on August 5, 1985. In these circumstances, habeas corpus is not an appropriate remedy *(People ex rel. Douglas v Vincent,*50 NY2d 901, *affg*67 AD2d 587; *People ex rel. Hall v LeFevre,*92 AD2d 956; *see, People ex rel. Keitt v McMann,*18 NY2d 257). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Contiguglia, J. — habeas corpus.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Boomer, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
**Exhibit      10.48**

**Agricultural      Bank of China**

**Loan      Certificate**

| Applicant                             |   | Shenzhen                BAK Battery Co., Ltd         |   | ID                card of the Applicant                |   | 73109958-5                                          |
|---------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                                  |   |                                                 |   |                                                   |   |                                                |
| Currency                              |   | RMB                                                  |   | Amount                                                 |   | 20,000,000                                          |
|                                  |   |                                                 |   |                                                   |   |                                                |
| Loan                Term              |   | From                July 9, 2007 to January 25, 2010 |
|                                  |   |                                                 |
| Usage                                 |   | Working                Capital                       |
|                                  |   |                                                 |
| Annual                rate            |   | 6.237%                                               |
|                                  |   |                                                 |   |                                                   |   |                                                |
| Reference                Contract No. |   | 81101200600001989                                    |   | Reference                Guaranty Contract No.         |   | 81901200600001462;                81902200600005528 |
|                                  |   |                                                 |   |                                                   |   |                                                |
| Signature                of Applicant |   | Stamp                of Applicant                    |   | Signature                of Agricultural Bank of China |   | Stamp                of Agricultural Bank of China  |
|                                  |   |                                                 |   |                                                   |   |                                                |
|                                  |   |                                                 |   |                                                   |   |                                                |
| /s/                Xiangqian Li       |   |                                                 |   |                                                   |   |                                                |

----
EXHIBIT 31.2

Certification

I, Jim C. Pyle, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of eLinear, Inc.;

2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control
over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and
15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and have:

a.     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

b.     Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision,
to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting
and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles;

c.     Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

5.     The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

a.     All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

b.     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: September 7, 2004


/s/ Jim C. Pyle
-------------------------
Jim C. Pyle, Principal Accounting Officer



<PAGE>
#### WALES MANUF’G CO., Appellant, v. LAZZARO et al., Respondents.

(City Court of New York,

General Term.

October 30, 1896.)

Action by Wales Manufacturing Company against Albert E. Lazzaro and the Mercantile Supply Company,

W. Furlong, for appellant.

H. M. Hitchings, for respondents.

SCHUCHMAN, J.

This is an appeal from an order dated August 3, 1896, directing the plaintiff to furnish to the defendants a bill of particulars. Said order is modified by striking therefrom the following: “Showing the dates of orders upon the plaintiff for goods for the defendants,” and “whether any and what goods were returned to the plaintiff, with the date of such return,” as contained in folio 55 of the printed appeal book; also, “and their 'connection with the defendants, or either of them,” and “what other persons, if any, were present at the time of making the sale,” as contained in folio 56 of tbe printed appeal book. For the reason that the defendants have better knowledge of their own acts than the plaintiff, and that it is not the office of a bill of particulars to apprise the opposite party of the names of witnesses, order appealed from modified as above, with costs of this appeal to the plaintiff against the defendants.- VAN WYCK, C. J., concurs.
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 14 - 00378 - CR RIC ARDO CANTU RESENDEZ, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 320th District Court Potter County, Texas Trial Court No. 68807 - D, Honorable Don R. Emerson, Presiding



### December 4, 2014 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. Appearing pro se, appellant Ric ardo Cantu Resendez attempts to appeal his conviction and sentence of six years’ confinement in prison for fraudulent use or possession of identifying information. 1 Sentence was imposed on July 28, 2014, and appellant filed a notice of appeal on October 17, 2014. Appellant did not file a motion for new trial.

1 T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 32.51(c)(2) (West Supp. 2014 ).2

By letter, we notified appellant his notice of appeal appeared untimely thus depriving us of appellate jurisdiction. We afforded him an opportunity to file documents or matters he considered necessary for determinatio n of our jurisdiction. Appellant made no response. Our appellate jurisdiction is triggered through a timely notice of appeal. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Appellate rule 26.2(a) requires a notice of appeal in a criminal cas e be filed within 30 days after the day sentence is imposed in open court or within 90 days after imposition of the sentence if a timely motion for new trial is filed. T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.2(a)(1), (2). Because appellant did not file a motion for new trial, his notice of appeal was due within thirty days after the date sentence was imposed in open court. Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed more than eighty days after imposition of sentence and was therefore untimely. Our appellate jurisdiction has not b een invoked. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 2
James T. Campbell Justice Do not publish.

2 We do not reach the second issue called to appellant’s attention by our letter. The trial court’s certification of appellant ’s right to appeal states this “ is a plea - bargain case and the defendant has no right of appeal .” T EX . R. A PP . P . 25.2(a)(2),(d).
Order entered August 23 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 16

- 00466

- CR

COREY ARLYN SMITH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 296th J udicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 296

- 82354

- 2014



### O RDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether appellant

has been deprived of the reporter’s record because of ineffective counsel, indige nce, or for any

other reason.

 The trial court shall first determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal. If the trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute the appeal, it shall make a finding to that effect.

 If the tr ial court determines that appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, it shall next determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment of costs for the reporter’s record. If appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of c osts, the trial court shall make a finding to that effect. Moreover, if appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel. If the t rial court finds appellant is not indigent, it shall determine whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. The trial court shall next determine: (1) the name and address of each court reporter who

recorded the proceedings in this cause; (2) the co urt reporter’s explanation for the delay in filing the reporter’s record; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter’s record can be filed.

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record, containing the written findings of fact,

any supporting docume ntation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date

of this order.

The appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeal

shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are r eceived,

whichever is earlier.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.15

                   MUTUAL RELEASE AND NULLIFICATION AGREEMENT

     THIS MUTUAL RELEASE AND NULLIFICATION AGREEMENT ("Release") is made and
entered into as of the 11th day of March 1999, by and between THE RECOVERY
NETWORK, INC., a Colorado corporation ("Company") and TELESERVICES
INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. ("Consultant").

                              W I T N E S S E T H

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Consultant (collectively, the "Parties")
entered into a Letter of Understanding ("Agreement") as of April 17, 1998; and

     WHEREAS, the Parties mutually agree that it is to their mutual best
interests to void said Agreement and to return the Parties to their respective
positions relative to the subject matter of the agreement prior to its execution
of the Agreement on April 17, 1998.

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants
contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
efficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereto agree as
follows:
                                   ARTICLE I
                                  TERMINATION

     1.1  The Parties hereby agree that the Agreement is null and void, and
that all actions under, and effects of, said Agreement are nullified and voided
as if said Agreement had never been executed by the Parties.

                                   ARTICLE II
                     WAIVER OF PERFORMANCE AND COMPENSATION

     2.1  In addition to any other agreement made herein, the Consultant
specifically waives all rights to any compensation, including, but not limited
to, warrants to the Company, and the Company waives all rights to any
performance by the Consultant.

                                  ARTICLE III
                                     WAIVER

     3.1  Each Party hereby waives, irrevocably and in perpetuity, any and all
losses, settlements, claims, actions, suits, proceedings, investigations,
judgments, awards, damages and liabilities, including reasonable attorneys'
fees (collectively "Losses" and, individually, a "Loss"), whether or not
known, anticipated, or foreseen, which are sustained or incurred by or
asserted against any of them and which arise out of the Agreement, any such
action or inaction hereunder or the termination thereof, as against the other
Party and its affiliates, their successors and assigns, and their respective
officers, directors, shareholders, employees and agents.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed and delivered the
Release and Indemnification Agreement, effective as of the day and year first
above-written.

THE RECOVERY NETWORK, INC.                TELESERVICES INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.


BY: /s/ GARY HOROWITZ                     BY: /s/ JAMES H. GUILD
  ------------------------                  -------------------------
  Gary Horowitz                             James H. Guild
  President and Chief Executive Officer     President