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


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


     In  connection  with the  Annual  Report of Life  Sciences  Research,  Inc.
("LSR") on Form 10-K for the period ended  December 31, 2003,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
Michaelson,  Chief  Financial  Officer  of LSR  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

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 LSR.



Date:    April 14, 2004                     /s/   Richard Michaelson
                                                  ---------------------
                                                  Richard Michaelson
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Deante Demone BLACKMON, also known as Dopey, also known as B-Murder, also known as Deon, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-50323

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 25, 2010.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant Us Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Deante Demone Blackmon, Bastrop, TX, pro se.

Before WIENER, PRADO and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Deante Demone Blackmon, federal prisoner # 35542-180, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based on recent amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines for crack cocaine offenses. He pleaded guilty to one count of distribution of crack cocaine, and he received an amended sentence of 180 months of imprisonment. By moving to proceed IFP, Blackmon is challenging the district court’s certification decision that his appeal was not taken in good faith because it is frivolous. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997).

The district court denied Blackmon’s § 3582(c)(2) motion in its exercise of discretion. In this court, Blackmon merely asserts that the guideline amendment is applicable to his sentence, and he requests that this court reduce his sentence accordingly. He does not challenge the reasons given by the district court for its denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion, and he has therefore abandoned the issue. *See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987).

Blackmon also maintains that trial and appellate counsel should have raised objections and arguments regarding drug quantity based on *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Blackmon’s claim regarding the validity of his original sentence is not properly presented in this § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. *See United States v. White-bird,*55 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th Cir.1995).

Blackmon has failed to show that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983). Accordingly, his IFP motion is DENIED. Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
EXHIBIT 32.1
  Certification of Chief Executive Officer and 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 Executive Officer of Retail Opportunity Investments Corp. (the "Company"), hereby certifies to the best of his knowledge on the date hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the "Form 10-Q"), filed concurrently herewith by the Company, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  Date:  November 4, 2010
By:  /s/ Stuart A. Tanz

Name:  Stuart A. Tanz

Title:  Chief Executive Officer
 
 The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of Retail Opportunity Investments Corp. (the "Company"), hereby certifies to the best of his knowledge on the date hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the "Form 10-Q"), filed concurrently herewith by the Company, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  Date:  November 4, 2010
By:  /s/ John B. Roche

Name:  John B. Roche

Title:  Chief Financial Officer
 
 Pursuant to the Securities and Exchange Commission Release 33-8238, dated June 5, 2003, this certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or incorporated by reference in any registration statement of the Company filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
  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.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-60124 Conference Calendar

__________________ ALVIN LEE JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus EDDIE LUCAS, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections, ET AL. Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:94-CV-68PS

- - - - - - - - - - August 23, 1995 Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Alvin Lee Jackson appeals the dismissal of his civil rights suit. Because Jackson did not file objections to the magistrate judge's report recommending dismissal, the factual findings therein are reviewed for "plain error or manifest injustice." Nettles v. Wainwright , 677 F.2d 404, 410 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc). An appellant, even one pro se , who wishes to challenge findings or conclusions that are based on proceeding at a hearing has the responsibility to order a transcript. Fed. R. App. P.No. 95-60124 -2-
10(b); Powell v. Estelle , 959 F.2d 22, 26 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 113 S. Ct. 668 (1992). This court does not consider the merits of an issue when the appellant fails in that responsibility. Powell , 959 F.2d at 26; see also Richardson v. Henry , 902 F.2d 414, 416 (5th Cir.) ( pro see appellant), cert. denied , 498 U.S. 901 (1990). Jackson has not provided a trial transcript. Even if a transcript were available, the credibility and weight to be given the evidence are exclusively in the province of the trier of fact. "`An appellate Court is in no position to weigh conflicting evidence and inferences or to determine the credibility of witnesses; that function is within the province of the finder of fact.'" Martin v. Thomas , 973 F.2d 449, 453 n.3 (5th Cir. 1992). Therefore, a transcript is irrelevant because Jackson's argument regarding credibility determinations is inappropriate. We thus decline to consider his contention on appeal. See Alizadeh v. Safeway Stores, Inc. , 910 F.2d 234, 237 (5th Cir. 1990). This appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 440 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 1512

Copper Fixed Swap - LME Copper CMA Swap (LBS) - LME

DESCRIPTION

A monthly cash settled swap based upon the price published by LME for the location specified in 

Floating Price A.

FLOATING PRICE A

The Floating Price for each contract month is equal to the arithmetic average of the LME Official Cash 

Settlement Price for Grade A Copper for each business day that it is determined during the contract 

month.

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE

The contract quantity shall be pounds. Each contract based shall be valued as the contract quantity in 

pounds multiplied by the settlement price.

LISTING CYCLE

Up to 120 consecutive monthly contract periods.

PRICING AND FLUCTUATIONS

Prices shall be quoted in U.S. dollars per pound. The minimum price fluctuation shall be $0.001 

per pound. The minimum price increment will be $0.0001. There shall be no maximum price 

fluctuation.

TERMINATION OF TRADING

Posting of transactions shall cease on the last calendar day of the contract month.

FINAL SETTLEMENT

Delivery under the contract shall be by cash settlement. Final settlement, following termination 

of posting for a contract month, will be based on the Floating Price. The final settlement price 

will be the Floating Price calculated for each contract month.
**E**xhibit23.1

**Consent Of Independent RegisteredPublic Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement (Forms S-3 No. 333-121910, No. 333-138926 and No.333-138930) of Five Star Quality Care, Inc., and in the related prospectuses ofour reports dated February 28, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements of Five Star Quality Care, Inc., Five Star Quality Care, Inc. management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Five Star QualityCare, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year endedDecember 31, 2006.

**/s/ Ernst &Young LLP**

** **

**Boston,Massachusetts**

**February 28, 2007**

 

----
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

September 22, 2022

Submitted via Portal

Mr. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick

Office of the Secretariat

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: Confidential Treatment Request – Exhibit A - AEGIS SEF LPP –

Description, Exhibit B - AEGIS SEF Liquidity Provider Agreement

Dear Sir:

AEGIS SEF, LLC (“AEGIS SEF”) hereby requests that the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading

Commission (the “Commission”) accord confidential treatment to Exhibits A and B

(“Exhibits”), which were submitted to the Commission as 40.6(a) Rule Certifications on this 

date. This request pertains to all material in the Exhibits. The Exhibits bear the designation 

“Confidential Treatment Requested by AEGIS SEF, LLC.”

This request for confidential treatment is made pursuant to Commission

Regulations 40.8, as Exhibit contains information that would reveal the

trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information of AEGIS SEF and its

affiliates. 

Please contact the undersigned at 832-413-5973 or afurman@aegis-hedging.com with any 

questions regarding this matter.

Andrew Furman

Chief Compliance Officer

AEGIS SEF, LLC

2829 Technology Forest Blvd

Suite 260

The Woodlands, TX 77381
ex10_2.htm

















10172 Linn Station Road


Louisville, KY 40223












September 15, 2010












To the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of NTS Mortgage Income Fund (the “Audit Committee”):


 


NTS Development Company and Residential Management Company (collectively referred to herein as “NTS”) agree to defer amounts owed to them by the NTS Mortgage Income Fund or its subsidiaries (the “Fund”) as of September 15, 2010, and to permit any such amounts to accrue from the date of this agreement through December 31, 2010, other than as permitted by cash flows of the Fund.  As of September 15, , 2010, the Fund owed $5,583,439.24 to NTS and their affiliates.


 


NTS further agrees to advance to the Fund such monies as are reasonably necessary to cover any shortfalls for expenses incurred between September 15, 2010 and December 31, 2010, and for those expenses provided for in the Fund’s 2010 Budget as approved by the Fund’s Board of Directors through December 31, 2010.  Unless NTS otherwise agrees, any such advances shall exclude any principal repayments on the mortgage note owed by the Fund to PNC Bank, National Association.


 


The terms of any deferrals or advances from NTS will be presented to the Audit Committee for prior approval and may be documented through a promissory note or notes from the Fund to NTS or their affiliates which shall mature on December31, 2010.  Any amounts so deferred or advanced by NTS shall accrue interest at the same rate as the NTS cost of funds rate which is currently 5.34%.


 


NTS has the financial ability to allow such deferrals and advances and will provide evidence of such upon reasonable request of the Audit Committee.


 


 







 



	 	
/s/ J.D. Nichols            


J.D. Nichols


Chairman of NTS Development Company


and Residential Management Company


	 	 
	 	
 /s/ Brian F. Lavin           


Brian F. Lavin


President of NTS Development Company


and Residential Management Company
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.
 Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
 AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
 ACTION: Notice of issuance of Letters of Authorization to take marine mammals incidental to oil and gas industry activities.
 SUMMARY: In accordance with section 101(a)(5)(A) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service implementing regulations [50 CFR 18.27(f)(3)], notice is hereby given that Letters of Authorization to take polar bears and Pacific walrus incidental to oil and gas industry exploration activities have been issued to the following company: Company
Activity
Location
Date issuedBP Exploration (Alaska)
Exploration
Liberty
April 30, 2001.WesternGeco
Exploration
Beaufort Sea
May 4, 2001.
 *Contact:*
                     Mr. John W. Bridges at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management Office, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99503, (800) 362-5148 or (907) 786-3810.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Letters of Authorization are issued in accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Rules and Regulations “Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities (65 FR 16828; March 30, 2000).” Dated: May 16, 2001. David B. Allen, Regional Director.


[FR Doc. 01-13592  Filed 5-30-01; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, v. Raymond PEARSON, Defendant.

No. 83 Cr. 370-CSH.

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

July 9, 1984.

Domenick J. Porco, New York City, for defendant.

Ruth Glushien-Wedgwood, Asst. U.S. Atty., New York City, for U.S.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

HAIGHT, District Judge:

Defendant Raymond Pearson has filed a timely motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to Rule 35, F.R.Crim.P. I have also considered counsel’s supplemental application by letter dated July 6, 1984, for a stay of defendant’s presently scheduled surrender date.

The motion is in all respects denied. Counsel for defendant has submitted some additional documents in respect of Malor Construction Company. Counsel makes reference to certain statements by the Court during sentencing, within the context of a possible probationary sentence. At Tr. 24, I said this:

> "... I am bound to say that I would be strongly inclined towards a term of probation for Mr. Raymond Pearson if it was clear to me that he was nothing but a relatively low-level employee of Malor, bound almost, as a practical matter, by virtue of that position low down on the economic hierarchy, to implement instructions given to him by his co-defendant Mr. Swami.

> “I would not reach such a conclusion with any degree of confidence in this case, having in mind the relationships of the brothers, the Quid connection, the inherent probabilities of things.”

Nothing in the present motion changes that perception. The “Quid connection” alone, as further explicated in the Government’s letter of July 5, 1984 opposing the motion (¶ 2), is sufficient to deprive defendant Pearson of that hypothetical profile to which I referred during sentencing.

No sufficient reason appears for delaying the date of surrender.

The motion is denied in its entirety.

It is SO ORDERED.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23 - 50390 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff
— Appellee **,** versus **Gaspar Vallejo -**  **Arias,** Defendant
— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:22 - CR - 1297 - 1

**________________ ______________**  Before **Higginbotham, Stewart,** and **Southwick,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** The attorney appointed to represent Gaspar Vallejo - Arias has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Vallejo - Arias has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 19, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-50390 Document: 42-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/19/2024No. 23 - 50390

2 concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from furth er responsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED** . See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2 . Case: 23-50390 Document: 42-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/19/2024
Case 1:07-cv-05903-SAS Document 11-4 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 1 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05903-SAS Document 11-4 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 2 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05903-SAS Document 11-4 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 3 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05903-SAS Document 11-4 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 4 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05903-SAS Document 11-4 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 5 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05903-SAS Document 11-4 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 6 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05903-SAS Document 11-4 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 7 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05903-SAS Document 11-4 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 8 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05903-SAS Document 11-4 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 9 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05903-SAS Document 11-4 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 10 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05903-SAS Document 11-4 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 11 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05903-SAS Document 11-4 Filed 10/24/2007 Page 12 of 12
LOGO

Exhibit 10.1



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT



Members of the Board

MTR Corporation Limited:



We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form F-3 (No.
333-13904) of MTR Corporation Limited and MTR Corporation (C.I.) Limited of our report dated March 6, 2003, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of the MTR Corporation Limited and its subsidiaries (the Group as of December 31,
2001 and 2002, the consolidated statements of changes in equity for the years ended December 31, 2001 and 2002, and the related consolidated profit and loss accounts and consolidated cash flow statements for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2002, which report appears in the annual report on Form 20-F of the Group for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002.



















/s/KPMG



Hong Kong

June 25, 2003



|
|

|
|

|
|

|
|
EXHIBIT 31.1

RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I,
Michael T. Willis, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended November 3, 2007 of Westaff, Inc.; and

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this Amendment No. 1 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 information set forth in this Amendment No. 1.

Date:
February 6, 2008

|                                                                                                                       |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/MICHAEL T. WILLISMichael T. Willis President and Chief Executive
OfficerWestaff, Inc. (Principal Executive Officer) |  | 

---



QuickLinks
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00467-CR

William Preston Hopper

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

§

From the 355th District Court

of Hood County (CR12877)

January 14, 2016

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

Dissent by Justice Dauphinot 

(p)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was error in the trial court’s judgment. The judgment is modified to reflect 

that the trial court assessed William Preston Hopper’s punishment. It is ordered 

that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed as modified.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

 Justice Lee Gabriel