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







**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








The
      undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of DCI USA, Inc. (the "Company") does
      hereby certify under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of
      18
      U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of the Company
      for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements
      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information
      contained in that Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:
                May 3, 2007
            
            /s/
                Jonathan RigbiJonathan
                    Rigbi


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

Eligibility for refugee status is determined on a case-by-case basis through an interview with a specially-trained USCIS officer. The interview is non-adversarial and is designed to obtain information about an individual’s refugee claim and eligibility for resettlement to the United States.

During the interview, we examine all relevant evidence, including testimony, to determine if the applicant:
                - qualified under a designated processing priority.
                - meets the definition of a refugee.
                - is not firmly resettled in a third country.
                - is otherwise admissible under U.S. law.

In making this determination we consider the conditions in the country of origin and evaluate the individual’s credibility. We also confirm that security checks have been completed and the results of the checks are reviewed and analyzed before approval.

**More Information**
                    - USRAP Flowchart (PDF, 242.41 KB)
                    - USRAP Consultation and Worldwide Processing Priorities
                    - Refugee Processing and Security Screening
                    - Request for Review Tip Sheet
                    - Questions and Answers: Refugees
                    - Central American Minors – CAM
                    - Immigration and Nationality Act
                    - USCIS Welcomes Refugees and Asylees (PDF, 1.35 MB)

**Forms**
                    - I-730, Refugees/Asylee Relative Petition
                    - I-485, Application to Register for Permanent Residence or Adjust Status
                    - I-765, Application for Employment Authorization

**Other USCIS Links**
                    - How Do I Get a Refugee Travel Document? (PDF, 622.89 KB)
                    - Green Card for Refugee
                    - How Do I Show My Employer That I Am Authorized to Work in the U.S.? (PDF, 686.31 KB)
                    - Family of Refugees and Asylees

**External Links**
                    - Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2021  (PDF)
                    - U.S. Department of State Report to Congress: Proposed Refugee Admissions FY 2021
                    - U.S. Department of State: Refugee Admissions Statistics
                    - Improved Security Procedures for Refugees Entering the United States, Oct,21, 2017

03/30/2021

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6915

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MANUEL HERNANDEZ LASTRA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CR-90-70115, CA-97-12-R)

Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 4, 1998

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Manuel Hernandez Lastra, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Lastra, Nos. CR-90-70115; CA-97-12-R (W.D.

Va. Apr. 14, 1998). 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
#### MITTAL STEEL POINT LISAS LTD., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, Gerdau Ameristeel Corp. and Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., Defendant-Intervenors.

Slip Op. 07-120.

Court No. 05-00681.

United States Court of International Trade.

Aug. 8, 2007.

*1346*MEMORANDUM OPINION*

POGUE, Judge.

In *Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad & Tobago,*70 Fed. Red. 69,512 (Dep’t Commerce Nov. 16, 2005)(notice of final results of anti-dumping duty administrative review) and its corresponding “Issues and Decisions Memorandum” dated November 16, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) calculated a constructed export price (“CEP”) for Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd.’s (“Mittal’s”) U.S. sales by, *inter alia,*deducting credit expenses for the time period between shipment from the port in Trinidad & Tobago and the date payment was received. Although this was consistent with Commerce’s general practice of using the date of shipment as the date of sale for purposes of calculating credit expenses, it was inconsistent with Commerce’s actions in other sections of the administrative review, where Commerce had treated Mittal’s later date of invoice, rather than the date of shipment, as the date of sale. Accordingly, the court granted the government’s motion for partial voluntary remand in order to address this issue, instructing Commerce to “determine the date on which credit expenses should begin to run, keeping in mind its previous determination in this review that the material terms of sale are not set until Mittal issues an invoice,” and permitting Commerce to “reassess its decision regarding inventory carrying costs in light of its reconsideration of credit expenses.” *Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States,*31 CIT -, 491 F.Supp.2d 1222, 1233-34 (2007).

On remand, Commerce found that because it had used the date of invoice as the date of sale in this review, it was appropriate to calculate credit expenses from the date of invoice, rather than the date of shipment. Commerce further recalculated Mittal’s carrying costs to reflect the date of sale occurring on the date of invoice. Mittal submitted comments indicating its agreement with Commerce’s determination of credit expenses and subsequent recalculation of CEP, and with Commerce’s determination of carrying costs.

This court, having received and reviewed Commerce’s Remand Results and *1347Mittal’s comments in response thereto,1 finds that Commerce duly complied with the court’s remand order. Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that the remand results filed by Commerce on June 21, 2007 are affirmed in their entirety. Judgment will be entered accordingly.

*JUDGMENT*

This action having been duly submitted for decision, and this court, after due deliberation, having rendered a decision herein; now, in conformity with that decision, it is hereby

ORDERED that the remand results filed by the Department of Commerce on June 21, 2007 are affirmed in their entirety-

1

. Defendant-Intervenors filed no comments on the remand results.
EXHIBIT 3.3


                                                                Filed # C7282-00
                                                                    May 23, 2002
                                In the office of Dean Heller, Secretary of State

                       CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                                 ENTERNET, Inc.

We, the undersigned President and Secretary of Enternet, Inc. do hereby certify:

         That the Board of Directors of said corporation at a meeting duly
         convened and held on the 3rd day of May 2002 adopted a resolution to
         amended the original articles as follows:

ARTICLE 1 is hereby amended to read as follows:

          That the name of the corporation is: Secured Data, Inc.

ARTICLE 4 is hereby amended to read as follows:

          The amount of the total authorized capital stock of the corporation is
          One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) consisting of One Hundred
          Million (100,000,000) shares of Common stock with a par value of $.001
          each.

The number of shares of the corporation outstanding and entitled to vote on an
amendment to the Articles of Incorporation are 11,200,000: that the said
change(s) and amendment has been consented to and approved by the stockholders
holding at least a majority of each class of stock outstanding and entitled to
vote thereon.

                                            /s/ Craig Robson, President
                                            ---------------------------
                                            Craig Robson, President

                                            /s/ Craig Robson, Secretary
                                            ---------------------------
                                            Craig Robson, Secretary

Providence of British Columbia
City of Richmond

         On May 21, 2002, personally appeared before me, a Notary Public,

Craig Robson and Craig Robson
------------------------------------------------
(Name of persons appearing and signing document)

Who acknowledged that they executed the above instrument.

/s/ Malek Allibhai                                 [Notary Stamp]
------------------
Signature of Notary

                                                      MALEK ALLIBHAI
                                                      Notary Public
                                                 #201-6411 Buswell Street
                                                  Richmond, B.C. V6Y 2G5
                                                      Tel: 244-8993


<PAGE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 30, 2018 s0523

Order 

Clerk

May 30, 2018

156624

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 156624

COA: 338390

Wayne CC: 83-005317-FC

MAURICE BUNKLEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 14, 2017 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court Chief Judge. 

Because defendant appears to have made a request under MCR 2.003(D)(3)(a)(i), the 

chief judge was required to decide the motion de novo.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 26, 2014.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, September 26, 2014

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15D0024. MACEDONIA BAPTIST CHURCH OF ATLANTA v. LIB PROPERTIES,

LTD et al..

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

07CV131798
## United States Court of App eals F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 1- 32 36

__ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *
* App el le e, *
* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s v. * Dis tri ctCo ur t fo r th e * W es te rn Dis tri ctof Ark an sa s. Bran do n Dav is , *
* [UNPUBLISHED] App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _ Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 7, 2 01 2 Fi le d: May 4, 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re WOL LMAN, MELLOY, andSMITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es
.

__ __ __ __ __ _ PER CURI AM.
A ft er Br an don Dav is pl ead ed gu il ty to a ch il d- po rn og rap hy pr od uc tio n of fe nse , in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 22 51 (b ), (e), an d po ss es si o n of ch il d po rn og rap hy, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 4) (B), th e di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m to a to ta l of 1 48 0 m on th s in pr is on , to be fo ll owe d by li fet im e supe rv is ed rel eas e. On ap pe al , hi s
co un se l ha s m ov ed to wit hd raw, an d ha s fil ed a br ie f un de r And ers v. Cal ifo rn ia , 38 6 U.S. 73 8 (1 96 7) , arg ui ng th atDavi s’s s en te nc e is un reas on ab le

.

The Hon or ab le Ji m

m Larry Hen dr en , Uni te d St at e s D i s t r ic t Ju dg e fo r th e 1 W es te rn Dis tri ctof Ark an sa s.Upo n care fu l rev ie w, we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t c o u rt di d no t ab us e it s

di sc ret io n in se nt en ci ng Dav is , an d th at th e co ur t im po se d a su bs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le

se nt en ce. See Uni te d St at es v. Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ) (in rev ie win g se nt e n c e fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n, ap pe ll at e co ur t fir st en su res th at di st ric t co ur t co mm i t t e d no si gn ifi can t pr oc ed ur al erro r, an d th en co ns id ers
su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of se nt en ce); se e al so Unit ed St at es v. Bo rro m eo , 65 7 F.3 d 75 4, 75 7 (8 th Ci r
. 20 11 ) (d is tri ct co ur t ha s wid e la ti tu de in weig hi ng 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s an d i n a ss ig ni ng so m e fac to rs gre at er wei gh t t ha n o th ers ).

Hav in g rev ie wed th e reco rd in de pe nd en tl y un de r Pen so n v. Ohi o, 48 8 U.S. 75 (1 98 8) , we ha ve fo u n d n o n o n fri vo lo us is su es fo r ap pe al

. Acco rd in gl y , we gr an t
co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw, an d we a ffi rm
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Pinnacle Resources, Inc. (the "Company"),
hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's
report on Form 10-Q for the three and nine months ended March 31, 2009
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

                         /s/ Robert A. Hildebrand
                         ------------------------------
                         Robert A. Hildebrand
                         Chief Financial Officer



May 20, 2009
EXHIBIT 18.1




May 10, 2011





Board of Directors


Stoneridge, Inc. and Subsidiaries


9400 East Market Street


Warren, Ohio 44484





Ladies and Gentlemen:





Note 2 of the Notes to the condensed consolidated financial statements of Stoneridge, Inc. and Subsidiaries included in its Form 10-Q for the three-months ended March 31, 2011 describes a change in the method of accounting for inventory valuation from the last-in, first-out (LIFO) method to the first-in, first-out (FIFO) method for certain of its U.S. businesses. There are no authoritative criteria for determining a “preferable” inventory method based on the particular circumstances; however, we conclude that such change in the method of accounting is to an acceptable alternative method which, based on your business judgment to make this change and for the stated reasons, is preferable in your circumstances. We have not conducted an audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) of any financial statements of the Company as of any date or for any period subsequent to December 31, 2010, and therefore we do not express any opinion on any financial statements of Stoneridge, Inc. and Subsidiaries subsequent to that date.








Very truly yours,





/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
#### Eunice ARHIN, a/k/a Eunice Akua Ahrin, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-1783.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 11, 2011.

Decided: April 20, 2011.

Jay S. Marks, Marks, Calderon, Derwin & Racine, PLC, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Liza S. Murcia, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eunice Arhin, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reconsider. We review the denial of motions to reconsider for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2010); *Narine v. Holder,*559 F.3d 246, 249 (4th Cir.2009); *Jean v. Gonzales,*435 F.3d 475, 481 (4th Cir.2006). To succeed on a motion to reconsider, the movant must specify an error of fact or *230law in the Board’s prior decision. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (2010).

We have reviewed the administrative record and Arhin’s contentions and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. *See In re: Arhin*(B.I.A. June 17, 2010). To the extent that Arhin challenges the Board’s orders of July 15, 2008, and February 11, 2009, we note that she failed to file timely petitions for review of those orders. We therefore dismiss the petition for review in part with respect to those claims. Finally, 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 IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.*
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 20792]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10186]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Army Science Board; Notice of Closed Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (P.L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following 
Study Group Meeting:

    Name of Study Group: Asymmetric Study Group.
    Date of Meeting: 16 May 2001.
    Time of Meeting: 0800-1700.
    Place of Meeting: Directed Technologies, Inc., 3601 Wilson 
Boulevard, Suite 650, Arlington, VA 22201, Phone: (703) 243-3383, 
FAX: (703) 243-2724.
    Agenda: The Army Science Board Study Group will conduct a study 
on ``Asymmetric Threats to Land Based Operations (2015-2020)'' as a 
means of examining and addressing innovative ways that asymmetric 
threats can be used to disrupt land based operations in the future. 
The 1-day meeting will be closed to the public. This meeting will be 
closed to the public in accordance with Section 552b(c) of Title 5, 
U.S.C., specifically paragraph (1) thereof, and Title 5, U.S.C., 
Appendix 2, subsection 10(d). For further information, please 
contact Ms. Betty LaFavers, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the 
Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology), (703) 695-1683.

Wayne Joyner,
Executive Assistant, Army Science Board.

Classified Meeting\*\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \*\ Security Clearance must be sent to DTI in advance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Army Science Board

``Asymmetric Threats to Land Based Operations 2015-2020''

Directed Technologies, Inc., 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 650, 
Arlington, VA 22201, 703-243-3383--FAX: 703-243-2724.

Agenda (Unclassified)

16 May 2001

0800  Welcome and Administrative Remarks--Co-Chairs
0815  Reports by Individuals and Clusters--All
1030  Break
1045  Continue Reports--All
1145  Lunch
1215  Continue Reports--All
1500  Break
1515  Group Discussion--All
1630  Summary and Actions / Assignments / Schedule for Next 
Meeting--Co-Chairs
1700  Adjourn

[FR Doc. 01-10186 Filed 4-24-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

PRINCETON CAPITAL CORPORATION,

Appellant,

v.

KEITH W. SMITH and PARKVIEW 

CAPITAL CREDIT INC.,

Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-24-00046-CV

Appeal from the

131st Judicial District Court

of Bexar County, Texas

(TC#2021CI02979)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion to determine whether it should be 

dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. 

On March 12, 2024, the Clerk of this Court sent Appellant a letter requesting payment of 

the required filing fee and notifying Appellant that its notice of appeal appeared to be untimely.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 5 (requiring payment of fees in civil cases unless a party is excused by statute 

or by appellate rules from paying costs). The letter notified Appellant that its appeal would be 

subject to dismissal on or after ten days of the date of the notice unless Appellant (1) tendered the 

filing fee or evidence that it was excused from paying the required fee; and (2) demonstrated that 

this Court had jurisdiction over the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3 (a)–(c) (authorizing an 

appellate court to dismiss an appeal when the court lacks jurisdiction, where an appellant fails to 
2

prosecute the appeal, and where an appellant fails to comply with a notice from the clerk requiring 

a response or other action within a specified time).

As of this date, which is more than ten days after the date of the notice, Appellant has not 

responded to this Court’s notice on either point. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 5, 43.3(a)–(c). 

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

March 28, 2024

Before Alley, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.