alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register: September 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 181)]
[Notices]
[Page 54801]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19se06-28]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date:  11 a.m., Friday, October 27, 2006.

Place:  1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission
Conference Room.

Status:  Closed.

Matters To Be Considered:  Surveillance matters.

For Further Information Contact:  Eileen A. Donovan, 202-418-5100.

Eileen A. Donovan,
Acting Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 06-7825 Filed 9-15-06; 3:39 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20581

www.cftc.gov

Office of Proceedings February 2, 2007

COMPLAINANT'S CHECKLIST

Before you file your reparations complaint, please complete this checklist to ensure that 

your filing is complete.

____ Has the two-year statute of limitations clearly expired?

____ Were the named respondents registered at the time of the alleged violations?

____ Is the subject matter clearly within the jurisdiction of the reparations program?

____ Have you listed the name, address, and telephone number, if known, of each

 individual/firm alleged in the complaint to have violated the Act or any rule,

 regulation or order thereunder?

____ Have you provided a complete description of your case, including but not limited to: a 

complete chronological account of the specific acts of which you complain; the

 names of persons who committed each act; the date and place of each act; and the

 manner in which these acts caused you to be injured?

____ Have you explained the amount of damages you are claiming and the method by which 

those damages have been computed?

____ Have you attached supporting documents such as account statements, account

 opening documents, etc. 

____ Have you included a statement indicating whether an arbitration proceeding or civil

 court litigation has ever been filed which is based on the same set of facts, and involves 

any party named as a respondent in the complaint?

____ Have you included a statement indicating whether any of the respondents is the

 subject of pending receivership or bankruptcy proceedings?

____ Have you made an election of the Voluntary, Summary, or Formal decisional procedure?

____ Have you included a filing fee with the complaint in the correct amount? 

See Notice to Customers Making Payment by Check.

____ (1) Voluntary Decisional Procedure: $50.00

____ (2) Summary Decisional Procedure: $125.00

____ (3) Formal Decisional Procedure: $250.00

____ Have you and each other complainant personally signed the complaint?
Exhibit 32.1

AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

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 filing of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (the Report) by Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company), each of the
undersigned hereby certifies that:



|1. | The Report 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |  |  |                                                 
|------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 13, 2011 |  |  |  |  |  | /S/    DONALD B.
WINGERTER, JR.                 
|                    |  |  |  |  |  | Donald B. Wingerter, Jr. Chief Executive Officer
|                    |  |  | 
|Dated: May 13, 2011 |  |  |  |  |  | /S/    Mark D.
McGregor                         
|                    |  |  |  |  |  | Mark D. McGregor Chief Financial Officer
#### Joseph E. RUBINO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ACME BUILDING MAINTENANCE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-16223.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 6, 2012.

*640Joseph E. Rubino, San Jose, CA, pro se.

David J. Comeaux, Stephen E. Hart, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Huston, TX, Erica K. Rocush, Ogle-tree Deakins Nash Smoak *&*Stewart, P.C., Tucson, AZ, David Dong-In Sohn, Ogle-tree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Paul T. Hammerness, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Joseph E. Rubino appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his employment action alleging race discrimination in violation of Title VII. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Leong v. Potter,*347 F.3d 1117, 1123 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Rubino’s race discrimination claim because Rubino failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether ACME Building Maintenance treated similarly situated individuals outside his protected class more favorably. *See id.*at 1124.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rubino’s discovery motions. *See Hallett v. Morgan,*296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir.2002) (noting that “[b]road discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or deny discovery” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Rubino’s remaining contentions, including those regarding judicial bias, are unpersuasive.

We do not consider Rubino’s contentions raised for the first time on appeal. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 32 

CERTIFICATION 

PURSUANT TO SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

        I,Raymond E. McElhaney, Principal Executive Officer and I, Frank L. Jennings, PrincipalFinancial Officer of Brishlin Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) certify that: 

        1.                 I have reviewed the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company; 

        2.                 Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly          report; and 

        3.                 Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information          included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the          financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of,          and for, the period presented in this quarterly report. 

Date:    May 14, 2008 

/s/ Raymond E. McElhaney
#### John HANDOJA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-74203.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 26, 2008.*

Filed Sept. 5, 2008.

Gihan L. Thomas, Esquire, Law Offices of Gihan L. Thomas, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Gregory Michael Kelch, Oil, DOJ-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: 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).

*552MEMORANDUM **

John Handoja, native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

Where, as here, the BIA adopts and affirms the IJ’s decision while also adding its own reasons, the court reviews both decisions. *See Nuru v. Gonzales,*404 F.3d 1207, 1215 (9th Cir.2005). We review for substantial evidence, reversing only if the evidence compels the result, *INS v. Elias-Zacanas,*502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and we deny the petition.

Even assuming *Sael v. Ashcroft,*386 F.3d 922 (9th Cir.2004) applies to withholding of removal, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal because Handoja has failed to demonstrate a clear probability of future persecution. *See Hoxha v. Ashcroft,*319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2003). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal because Handoja has similarly-situated family members who remain in Indonesia practicing Christianity without incident, including his father who is a pastor at a local church. *See Hakeem v. INS,*273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir.2001). In addition, the record does not establish that Handoja has demonstrated a pattern or practice of persecution against Chinese Christian Indonesians. *See Lolong v. Gonzales,*484 F.3d 1173, 1178-81 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Handoja has not shown it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to Indonesia. *See*8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**Exhibit 32**

 

 

 

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief FinancialOfficer of First Community Corporation (the “Company”), each certify that, tohis knowledge on the date of this certification:

 

1.               The annual report of the Company for the period endingDecember 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thisdate (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 

 
|   |   |   |   |   |   | /s/ Michael C.  Crapps  |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   |   |   |   |   | Michael C. Crapps       |
|   |   |   |   |   |   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   |   |   |   |   | March 28, 2005          |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |                    |
|   |   |   |   |   |   | /s/ Joseph G.  Sawyer   |
|   |   |   |   |   |   | Joseph G. Sawyer        |
|   |   |   |   |   |   | Chief Financial Officer |
|   |   |   |   |   |   | March 28, 2005          |

 

----
EXHIBIT
32.2





Certificate
of Principal Accounting Officer as required by 18 U.S.C. Section
1350





In
connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2008 (the "Report"), of Aurora Oil & Gas Corporation ("Aurora")
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2009, I,
Barbara E. Lawson, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Principal
Accounting Officer) of Aurora, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:





1.      The
Report 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





March 13, 2009
              By:
              /s/ Barbara E. LawsonBarbara
      E. Lawson, Chief Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Principal Accounting
Officer)




A signed
original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been
provided to Aurora Oil & Gas Corporation and will be retained by Aurora Oil
& Gas Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
# FCM Data May 2010
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Sports Properties Acquisition Corp. (the Company) for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 USC. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based
on my 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 the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Larry D. Hall                    
|Larry D. Hall Chief Financial
Officer

Date: August 13, 2009
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Devon Maxwell, Appellant.

[873 NYS2d 917]

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Carter, J.), rendered March 17, 2008, convicting him of attempted assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo, Dickerson and Chambers, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Virginia GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-41174

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 26, 2010.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Oscar A. Vela, Jr., Esq., Law Office of Oscar A. Vela, Jr., P.C., Laredo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Virginia Garcia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Garcia has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL 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.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of 
Penfed Bancorp, Inc. and Subsidiary on Form S-8 of our report dated July 25, 
1997, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of Penfed Bancorp, 
Inc. and Subsidiary as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and for each of the years 
then ended which report is incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on 
Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 1996.


/s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.

Lexington, Kentucky
October 6, 1997
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 2339** 

JORDAN A. BROWN , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. RAMONA BROCKETT , Defendant

– Appellant , and
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND EASTERN SHORE , Defendant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. ( 1:11

- cv - 00240

- JFM )

Submitted : October 31, 2014 Decided: November 4, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Laura L. Nagel , ALAN LESCHT & ASSOCIATES, PC , Washington, D
. C ., for Appellant. Peter F. Axelrad , N. Tucker Meneely , COUNCIL, BARADEL, KOSMERL & NOLAN, P.A. , Annapolis, Maryland , for Appellee
.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Ramona Brockett appeals the district court ’ s order denying Brock ett’s motion for a judgment not withstanding the verdict or for a new trial following the ju ry’s verdict in favor of Jordan Brown on his claim for defamation, and challenges the amount of damages remitted upon the court’s grant of Brockett’s motion for a remitt itur . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affir m for the reasons stated by the district court. Brown v. Brockett , No. 1:11

- cv - 00240

- JFM (D. Md. Oct. 15, 2013) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argume nt would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION
  (i)
    
    the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2008 to
which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Quarterly Report) fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of MAKO Surgical Corp.
 August 8, 2008
    /s/ Maurice R. Ferré, M.D.Maurice R. Ferré, M.D.President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of
the Board
(Principal Executive Officer)
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-12-00622-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.J., a Child

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-PA-02163

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 12, 2012

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

On August 25, 2011, the Department of Family and Protective Services filed an original 

petition for protection of J.J., a child, and for termination of the parents’ parental rights. In an 

order signed on September 6, 2012, the trial court granted a motion for J.J. to be placed with 

maternal grandparents in a different state; the order did not adjudicate appellant father’s parental 

rights. 

On September 14, 2012, appellant father filed a notice of appeal complaining of the 

placement order. In our November 6, 2012 order to appellant father, we warned appellant that 

this court lacks jurisdiction over most orders that do not “dispose[] of all pending parties and 

claims in the record.” See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (noting 

that generally “an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment”). We ordered appellant to 
04-12-00622-CV

- 2 -

show cause in writing to this court by November 21, 2012, why this appeal should not be 

dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. We 

warned appellant that if he failed to show cause in writing within the time provided, the appeal 

would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). 

To date appellant has not filed a response to our November 21, 2012 order. Therefore, 

we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See id.; see also id. R. 42.3(c). 

PER CURIAM
#### Claudio JUAREZ-MENDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-71112.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.*

Filed Sept. 29, 2010.

Murray David Hilts, Law Offices of Murray D. Hilts, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.

Shelley Goad, Assistant Director, OIL, Linda S. Wendtland, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, 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).

MEMORANDUM **

Claudio Juarez-Mendez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Avila-Sanchez v. Mukasey,*509 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Juarez-Mendez’s motion to reopen where he offered no new material evidence in support of the motion, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1), and where Juarez-Mendez departed the United States after relief under former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996), was previously denied by the BIA in the exercise of discretion, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.44(d), (k); *see also Avila-Sanchez,*509 F.3d at 1040-41 (9th Cir.2007).

To the extent Juarez-Mendez challenges the BIA’s May 28, 1997, order sustaining the government’s appeal, we lack jurisdiction because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

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