alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OSCAR ARMANDO DIAZ-CORVERA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-72766

BIA No. A098-270-048

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 16, 2013** 

Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Oscar Armando Diaz-Corvera, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his

appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum

and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

FILED

APR 22 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-72766

review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Shrestha v. Holder,

590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Diaz-Corvera has shown

extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely filing of his asylum

application, where he testified that he knew about the filing deadline and chose not

to file because he feared being removed if his asylum claim was denied. See 8

C.F.R § 1208.4(a)(5). Accordingly, Diaz-Corvera’s asylum claim fails. We reject

Diaz-Corvera’s contention that the BIA’s refusal to consider changed

circumstances deprived him of due process, because the BIA considered and

rejected his changed circumstances argument. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,

1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must show error to establish a due process

violation). 

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal

because Diaz-Corvera failed to establish that the government was unable or

unwilling to control the individuals who threatened him. See Nahrvani v.

Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005). Because he has not shown past

persecution, Diaz- Corvera’s contention that he is entitled to a presumption of

future persecution fails. See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th Cir.

2002). Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Diaz-
3 11-72766

Corvera failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he will be persecuted if he

returns to El Salvador, because the people who threatened him have not inquired

about his whereabouts since 2006, and country conditions evidence shows that

political violence in El Salvador is sporadic. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d

1083, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2010) (evidence of changed country conditions mitigates

against fear of future persecution upon return). Accordingly, Diaz-Corvera’s

withholding of removal claim fails. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
IN RE T.S.

No. COA04-1088.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed April 5, 2005.

Certification Date April 25, 2005.

Appeal from Burke (02J27).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. GRAHAM.

No. COA04-784.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed April 5, 2005.

Certification Date April 25, 2005.

Appeal from Forsyth (00CRS28641).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2



QUADRAMED CORPORATION

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS



In connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K of QuadraMed Corporation for the period ended December 31, 2007, I, David L. Piazza, Chief Financial Officer of QuadraMed Corporation, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my best knowledge:



|1. | This Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 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 this Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of QuadraMed Corporation.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: March 14, 2008 |  | /s/ David L. Piazza    
|                     |  | David L. Piazza        
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer
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 of New York Mortgage Trust, Inc., (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
      undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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:
                August 11, 2008
            
            /s/ Steven
                R. MummaChief
                Financial Officer
STATE v. Avenger RIDGEWAY.

No. 273A01-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 30, 2005.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, Rex Gore, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th day of June 2005 by Defendant for Emergency Intervention:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 30th day of June 2005."
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONOF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Thefollowing certification accompanies the issuer’s Quarterly Report on Form10-QSB, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2006, and is not filed, asprovided in Release 33-8212, 34-47551.

Inconnection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Treaty Oak Bancorp, Inc. (“TreatyOak”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Jeffrey L. Nash, President and Chief Executive Officer of Treaty Oak, herebycertify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

(1)                                  theReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                                  theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Treaty Oak.

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Treaty Oak and will be retained by Treaty Oak and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
| Dated: February 14, 2007 |                                  |   |
|--------------------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                     |                                  |   |
|                          | /s/ Jeffrey L. Nash                   |   |
|                     | Jeffrey L. Nash                       |   |
|                     | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5188 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5188

     To extend the temporary suspension of duty on C12-18 alkenes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 29, 2008

   Mrs. Maloney of New York introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To extend the temporary suspension of duty on C12-18 alkenes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. C12-18 ALKENES.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.24.14 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to C12-18 alkenes) is amended 
by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
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 Apple REIT Six, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly
represents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company as of September 30, 2006, and for the period then ended.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/S/ GLADE M. KNIGHT    
|Glade M. Knight        
|Chief Executive Officer
|                       
|November 2, 2006       
|                       
|/s/ BRYAN PEERY        
|Bryan Peery            
|Chief Financial Officer

November 2, 2006



21
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 of Scientific  Energy,  Inc. on
Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ending  September  30,  2004,  as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Jana
Meyer,  Treasurer/Secretary  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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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 result of
                  operations of the Company.


/S/ Jana Meyer
Jana Meyer
Secretary/Treasuer and Director
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


March 28, 2005


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
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.
BESSEMER CITY EXP., INC. v. CITY OF KINGS MOUNTAIN

No. COA04-1050

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed August 16, 2005

Certification Date September 6, 2005

Appeal from Cleveland (00CVS2135).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
WENDT v. TOLSON

No. COA03-1680

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed August 16, 2005

Certification Date September 6, 2005

Appeal from Carteret (02CVS1146).

Cases reported without published opinion. Vacated and remanded in part.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO TITLE 18,


UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, James C. Clemmer, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of ANGIODYNAMICS, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of my knowledge:


1.the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended February 28, 2017 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and2.the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: July 25, 2017





/ s / James C. ClemmerJames C. Clemmer, President,Chief Executive Officer
HomeOcean Facts

# Is there gold in the ocean?

## Yes, there is gold in the ocean.

If searching for gold, this ROV wouldn't find it. Gold in the ocean is so dilute that its concentration is on the order of parts per trillion. Pictured above, the ROV *Deep Discoverer* investigates the geomorphology of Block Canyon in the Atlantic Ocean. 

Ocean waters do hold gold, but it's difficult to say exactly how much.  If you were hoping make your fortune mining the sea, consider this: Gold  in the ocean is so dilute that its concentration is very small. One study found there is only about one gram of gold for every 100 million metric tons of ocean water in the Atlantic and north Pacific.

There is also (undissolved) gold in/on the seafloor. The  ocean, however, is deep, meaning that gold deposits are a mile or two underwater.  And once you reach the ocean floor, you’ll find that gold deposits are also  encased in rock that must be mined through. Not easy. Currently, there is no a cost-effective way to mine  or extract gold from the ocean to make a profit. 

###### Get **Social**

###### More **Information**

          - Why  is the ocean salty?

**Last updated:**   01/18/24**Author:** NOAAHow to cite this article

Contact Us

            - Provide Feedback 
            -  Contact Us 
            -  Report an error 

##### Science. Service.Stewardship.

###### 						About NOS 					

            - About Us
            - NOS Program Offices
            - Media Inquiries
            - Website Acknowledgements

###### 						Resources 					

            - Site Index
            - Disclaimer
            - Freedom of Information Act
            - Accessibility

###### 						More Resources 					

            - Information Quality
            - Privacy Policy
            - NOS For Employees
            - USA.gov

          -  National Ocean Service
          -  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
          -  Department of Commerce

##### 						Social 					

            - 
            - 
            - 
            - 
            -
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5096 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5096

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain staple fibers of 
viscose rayon, not carded, combed, or otherwise processed for spinning.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 22, 2008

  Mr. Coble introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain staple fibers of 
viscose rayon, not carded, combed, or otherwise processed for spinning.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CERTAIN STAPLE FIBERS OF VISCOSE RAYON, NOT CARDED, COMBED, 
              OR OTHERWISE PROCESSED FOR SPINNING.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.23.33 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to certain staple fibers of 
viscose rayon, not carded, combed, or otherwise processed for spinning) 
is amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
STATE of North Carolina v. Michael Paul LOWRY.

No. 39P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 30, 2005.

Richard E. Jester, for Michael Paul Lowry.

R. Kirk Randleman, Assistant Attorney General, G. Dewey Hudson, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 18th day of January 2005 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th day of June 2005."
Policy Statement on Continuing or Closing a Hatch Act Case

when the Subject Official Leaves Federal Government Service

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) has discretion to continue or close a Hatch Act 

case when the subject official—typically a current federal employee—leaves government service.

Background

Ordinarily a complaint alleging a Hatch Act violation by a current federal employee triggers 

an investigation by OSC. If the facts warrant, upon completion of its investigation, OSC may file a 

complaint for disciplinary action before the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board). If the Board 

determines that the employee violated the Hatch Act, the Board can choose from a variety of 

penalties: removal, reduction in grade, debarment from federal employment not to exceed five 

years, suspension, reprimand, or civil penalty not to exceed $1,000.

In certain cases, OSC may not have completed its investigation and filed a complaint with 

the Board before the subject official of the investigation leaves federal service. In these cases, the 

Board lacks jurisdiction to impose a penalty on the subject official. 

Factors

If OSC has an open Hatch Act investigation when the subject official leaves federal service, 

OSC will generally close the case given the Board’s lack of jurisdiction and OSC’s limited 

resources. In some circumstances, however, OSC may elect to keep the case open and complete the 

investigation. Factors to consider in making this determination include: (1) whether the 

investigation is significantly completed; (2) the potential for corrective action (e.g., reimbursement for 

political travel); (3) whether the violations are notorious, egregious, or likely to reoccur; (4) the level 

of public interest; and (5) whether resolution of the case will further OSC’s goal of providing 

guidance on Hatch Act compliance and deterring future violations. No one factor is dispositive. 

Even if multiple factors are present in a case, OSC will not merely add factors together, but instead 

will weigh the severity of each factor. 

Procedure

When the subject official in a Hatch Act case leaves government service, the Hatch Act Unit 

will make a recommendation to the Special Counsel regarding whether to continue or close the case 

after assessing the relevant factors described above. The Special Counsel will make the final 

determination.

Note: This document supersedes all prior oral or written statements on this issue. This document is not intended to create any 

right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against OSC or any other individual or entity.

1/2018

U.S. OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
Exhibit 32.2









CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL


OFFICER REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING


FINANCIAL STATEMENTS









I, Eloise E. Schmitz, the Chief Financial Officer of CCO Holdings, LLC and CCO Holdings Capital Corp. (the "Company") in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that, the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 (the
"Report") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission:




·
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




·
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.









/s/
Eloise E. Schmitz


Eloise
E. Schmitz


Chief
Financial Officer


(Principal
Financial Officer)


August
14, 2009
Helen Ruth COCKRELL v. Pierre A. LEMAIRE, M.D. and Wilson Surgical Associates, P.A.

No. 127P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 24, 2004.

Charles D. Mast, Smithfield, for Cockrell.

John W. Minier, Raleigh, for Lemaire M.D. et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 18th day of March 2004 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the *41decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th day of June 2004."