alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

                                 CERTIFICATION


     In connection with the periodic report of China Jo-Jo Drugstores, Inc. (the
"Company")  on  Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Lei Liu, Chief Executive
Officer  (Principal  Executive Officer) of the Company, hereby certify as of the
date  hereof,  solely  for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the
United  States  Code,  that  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge:


     (1)  The  Report  fully  complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d),  as  applicable,  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  at  the  dates  and  for  the  periods  indicated.



Date:  August 16, 2010                       /s/ Lei Liu
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                             Lei Liu
                                             Chief Executive Officer
                                             (Principal Executive Officer)
#### Armando Comino SERRANO; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

Nos. 05-75217.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 4, 2006.*

Filed Dec. 8, 2006.

Martin Resendez Guajardo, Esq., Law Office of Martin Resendez Guajardo, for Petitioners.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

*627Armando Comino Serrano and Alma Gloria Rumualdo Garcia, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying petitioners’ motion to reopen proceedings following the BIA’s affirmance of an immigration judge’s denial of their application for cancellation of removal.

Petitioners concede that their motion to reopen was untimely, but contend that the BIA should have *sua sponte*reopened their application to correct a miscarriage of justice and address a significant change in law. Petitioners also allege that they were denied their right to a full and fair hearing in the underlying removal hearing.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely because petitioners did not file the motion within ninety days of the BIA’s final order of removal. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); *Azanor v. Ashcroft,*364 F.3d 1013, 1021-22 (9th Cir.2004). We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ contention that the BIA should have *sua sponte*granted their motion to reopen despite its untimeliness, because the decision of the agency whether to invoke its *sua sponte*authority is committed to its unfettered discretion. *See Ekimian v. INS,*303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002). We will not consider petitioner’s remaining contentions, because the contentions do not concern the untimeliness of petitioner’s motion to reopen.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Mulya SASMITA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-73969.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 26, 2008.*

Filed Sept. 8, 2008.

Errol I. Horwitz, Law Offices of Errol I. Horwitz, Woodland Hills, CA, for Petitioner.

District Director, Office of the District Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, Ronald E. Le-Fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Margaret A. O’Donnell, Patricia Ann Smith, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

*587Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Mulya Sasmita, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. *Lemus-Galvan v. Mukasey,*518 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir.2008). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s CAT determination and review de novo questions of law. *Zheng v. Ashcroft,*332 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Sasmita did not show it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if he returned to Indonesia. *See Nuru v. Gonzales,*404 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir.2005).

Contrary to Sasmita’s contention, the IJ used the correct legal standard and considered the relevant evidence in evaluating his deferral of removal claim. *See Zheng,*332 F.3d at 1194.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
| (1) | such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31, 2010 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Dot VN, Inc. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: October 6, 2011    | By:    |  /s/ Dr. Lee Johnson                                                                                       |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                    |   | Dr. Lee Johnson                                                                                                 |   |
|                                    |   | President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Technical Officer (and principal financial and accounting officer) |
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**501 KAH 13-00585** 
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, FAHEY, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK EX REL. DWIGHT M. DILBERT, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MARK BRADT, SUPERINTENDENT, ATTICA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

ALAN BIRNHOLZ, EAST AMHERST, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Penny M. Wolfgang, J.), entered January 2, 2013 in a habeas corpus proceeding. The judgment denied the petition.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the evidence adduced at trial was legally insufficient to support the conviction of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [2] [depraved indifference]) inasmuch as the evidence established that his acts against the victim were intentional and manifested an intent to kill. We conclude that Supreme Court properly denied the petition. “ ‘Habeas corpus relief is not an appropriate remedy for asserting claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal or in a CPL article 440 motion’ ” ( People ex rel. Martinez v Graham , 98 AD3d 1312, 1312, lv denied 20 NY3d 853; see People ex rel. Smith v Graham , 109 AD3d 1113, 1113; People ex rel. Lewis v Graham , 96 AD3d 1423, 1423, lv denied 19 NY3d 813).

Entered: May 2, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
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.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Army Corps of Engineers

# AGENCY:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice of open meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

In Accordance with 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law (92-463), announcement is made of the next meeting of the Inland Waterways Users Board. The meeting will be held on July 18, 2001, in Davenport, Iowa, River Center, Iowa and Missouri Rooms, 136 East 3rd Street, (Tel. (563) 326-8500). Registration will begin at 7:30 am and the meeting is scheduled to adjourn at 1 pm. The meeting is open to the public. Any interested person may attend, appear before, or file statements with the committee at the time and in the manner permitted by the committee.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Norman T. Edwards, Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CECW-PD, 441 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20314-1000.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

None.

Luz D. Ortiz,

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 01-14514  Filed 6-7-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710-92-M
Exhibit No. 32.1
----------------
Form 10-Q
BTHC XV, Inc.
File No. 0-52808

          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 BTHC XV, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the  period  ending  March 31,  2008 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Timothy P. Halter,
Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  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 the Company.


Date: April 29, 2008                       By:       /s/ Timothy P. Halter
      --------------                           ---------------------------------
                                                               Timothy P. Halter
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
                                                     and Chief Financial Officer



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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 122 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

in the One Hundred Eleventh Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 4, 2009 

Mr. FILNER submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on 

Veterans’ Affairs in the One Hundred Eleventh Congress. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES. 

3 For the expenses of the Committee on Veterans’ Af4 fairs (hereafter in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Com5 mittee’’), including the expenses of all staff salaries, there 

6 shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts of the House 

7 of Representatives for committee salaries and expenses, 

8 not more than $7,844,690.00 for the One Hundred Elev9 enth Congress. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 122 IH 

1 SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS. 

2 Of the amount specified in section 1— 

3 (1) not more than $3,812,691.00 shall be avail4 able for expenses incurred during the period begin5 ning at noon on January 3, 2009, and ending imme6 diately before noon on January 3, 2010; and 

7 (2) not more than $4,031,999.00 shall be avail8 able for expenses incurred during the period begin9 ning at noon on January 3, 2010, and ending imme10 diately before noon on January 3, 2011. 

11 SEC. 3. VOUCHERS. 

12 Payments under this resolution shall be made on 

13 vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the 

14 Chairman of the Committee, and approved in the manner 

15 directed by the Committee on House Administration. 

16 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS. 

17 Amounts made available under this resolution shall 

18 be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by 

19 the Committee on House Administration. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
#### Pradeep BHUSAL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-73467.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 8, 2010.*

Filed April 29, 2010.

Patrick Ontiveros Cantor, Esquire, But-tar & Cantor, LLP, Tukwila, WA, for Petitioner.

Kimberly A. Burdge, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: HAWKINS, LUCERO,** and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Carlos F. Lucero, Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Pradeep Bhusal, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the oral decision of an immigration judge (IJ) denying Bhusal’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

Even if we were to accept Bhusal’s arguments that the Maoists targeted him (or his family) on account of a protected ground, Bhusal failed to establish that what happened to him amounted to past persecution. Because Bhusal has not established past persecution, he is not entitled to a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1) (2010), and Bhusal has not presented any evidence that independently establishes such a well-founded fear. Therefore, his asylum claim fails.

Because Bhusal did not satisfy the lower standard of proof for asylum, he necessarily did not satisfy the more stringent standard of proof for withholding of removal. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003). Bhusal’s CAT claim was properly rejected because the record evidence does not compel the conclusion that he would most likely be tortured by or with the acquiescence of a government official or other person acting in an official capacity. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1) (2010); *Almaghzar v. Gonzales,*457 F.3d 915, 922-23 (9th Cir.2006). Thus, the BIA’s determination that Bhusal was not *711entitled to any relief is therefore supported by substantial evidence.

PETITION DENIED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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.                  

###### Postal Service Board of Governors

# Contact Person for More Information:

David G. Hunter, Secretary of the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20260-1000. Telephone (202) 268-4800.

David G. Hunter,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-14132 Filed 5-31-01; 3:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Amitrano, Appellant.

[874 NYS2d 456]

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Roger S. Hayes, J.), rendered May 3, 2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of two months, unanimously affirmed. The matter is remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings pursuant to CEL 460.50 (5).

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There was ample evidence to establish defendant’s role in attacking the victim.

The court provided suitable remedies for the People’s loss of certain police reports *(see People v Martinez,*71 NY2d 937, 940 [1988]). The court’s adverse inference charge conveyed the proper standards, including the permissive nature of such an inference *(see People v Brister,*239 AD2d 513 [1997], *lv denied*90 NY2d 938 [1997]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ. [See 15 Misc 3d 1126(A), 2007 NY Slip Op 50851(U).]
#### Samweil Mazouz Baslious SAADALLA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-1871.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 31, 2008.

Decided: Sept. 2, 2008.

Adedayo O. Idowu, Idowu & Associates, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Senior Litigation Counsel, Katharine E. Clark, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Samweil Mazouz Baslious Saadalla, a native and citizen of Egypt, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion. *See INS v. Doherty,*502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
```

[Federal Register: February 18, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 33)]
[Notices]
[Page 8347]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18fe05-45]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday, March 25, 2005.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission
Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Surveillance matters.

Contact Person For More Information: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-3282 Filed 2-16-05; 11:00 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 99


         Forward-Looking Statements

                 In connection with the "safe harbor" provisions of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, AmeriGas Partners, L.P. ("AmeriGas
Partners") is hereby filing cautionary statements identifying important factors
that could cause AmeriGas Partners' actual results to differ materially from
those projected in forward-looking statements of AmeriGas Partners made by or
on behalf of AmeriGas Partners.


         Risk Factors

                 The financial and operating performance of AmeriGas Partners
is subject to risks and uncertainties, all of which are difficult to predict,
and many of which are beyond the control of management.  Forward-looking
statements concerning AmeriGas Partners' performance may differ materially from
actual results because of these risks and uncertainties.  They include, but are
not limited to:

                 1.   Weather conditions;
                 2.   price and availability of propane, and the capacity
                      to transport to market areas;
                 3.   governmental legislation and regulations;
                 4.   local economic conditions;
                 5.   labor relations;
                 6.   environmental claims;
                 7.   competition from the same and alternative energy
                      sources;
                 8.   operating hazards and other risks incidental to
                      transporting, storing, and distributing propane;
                 9.   energy efficiency and technology trends;
                 10.  interest rates; and
                 11.  large customer defaults.