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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 (the Report) of APOLLO INVESTMENT CORPORATION (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, RICHARD L.
PETEKA, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, 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 Registrant.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ RICHARD L. PETEKA  
|Name: Richard L. Peteka
|Date: November 6, 2007
STATE v. GEORGE.

No. COA05-1454.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed July 5, 2006.

Certification Date July 25, 2006.

Appeal from Craven (03CRS52717).

Case without published opinion. No error.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ABRAHAM SALGADO

- SALGADO,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 73730

Agency No. A200

- 381

- 221

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 12, 2018 **

Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Abraham Salgado

- Sa lgado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing h is appeal

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying cancellation of removal. We

dismiss the petition for review.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

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

# FILED

JUN 18 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 73730

W e lack jurisdiction to consider Salgado

- Salgado’s unexhausted sole

contention. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Barron v. Ashcroft

, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.

2004)

. Salgado

- Sa lgado contends that the IJ’s failure to allow him to submit

updated hardship evidence prior to issuing the removal order constituted a due

process violation and a violat ion of 8 U.S.C § 1229a(b)(4)(B) ; however, Salgado

Sa lgado failed to adequately raise this contention in his brief to the BIA

. See Young

v. Holder , 697 F.3d 976, 982 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), abrogated in part on other

grounds by Moncrieffe v. Holder , 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013) (“P resenting an argument

to the BIA requires reasoning sufficient to put the BIA on notice that it was called

on to decide the issue. A general challenge to the IJ’s decision is insufficient; the

alien must specify particula r issues on ap peal to the BIA.” (citation omitted) ).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Michael S. Gross, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Apollo Investment Corporation, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Apollo Investment
Corporation;



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;



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 flow of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
this quarterly report;



4. The registrants other
certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:



a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly
report is being prepared; and



b) evaluated the effectiveness
of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and



c) disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over the financial reporting;



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.



|                                 
|---------------------------------
|Dated this 3rdday of August, 2005
|                                 
|/s/ Michael S. Gross             
|Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S.DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-03-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           5,417
<SECURITIES>                                     1,268
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,966
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,304
<INVENTORY>                                     80,580
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               134,052
<PP&E>                                          30,902
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,673
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 203,579
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,021
<BONDS>                                         76,912
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,454
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,731
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   203,579
<SALES>                                         63,525
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                63,525
<CGS>                                           33,402
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,268
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (26)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,397
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,526
<INCOME-TAX>                                       547
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                979
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       979
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.11
        

</TABLE>
FILED 

 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

 MAY 29, 2003 

 THOMAS K. KAHN 

 CLERK

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

__________________________

No. 01-15148

__________________________

D. C. Docket No. 00-00079-CR-1-RV

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DAVID HENSON MCNAB,

ROBERT D. BLANDFORD, et al.,

Defendants-Appellants.

___________________________

No. 02-10810

___________________________

D. C. Docket No. 00-00079-CR-CB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ABNER SCHOENWETTER,

ROBERT D. BLANDFORD,

Defendants-Appellants.
2

_____________________________

No. 02-11264

_____________________________

D. C. Docket No. 00-00079-CR-1-RV

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DAVID HENSON MCNAB,

ABNER SCHOENWETTER, et al.,

Defendants-Appellants.

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

_________________________

(May 29, 2003)

Before HULL, WILSON and FAY, Circuit Judges.

ORDERED:

The petitions for rehearing are granted in part by deleting entirely footnote

24 from the Court’s opinion which was issued on March 21, 2003. The Court will

issue a substituted opinion making that deletion. The Court otherwise denies the

petitions for rehearing of defendants’ McNabb, Schoenwetter, Huang, Blandford

and Embassy of Honduras. 
3

No member of this Court having requested a poll, we deny the suggestion

for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 35(a); Eleventh Circuit Rule 35-5.

FAY, Circuit Judge, dissents.
November 4, 2015 STATE OF MINNESOTA 

IN SUPREME COURT 

Al5-0357 

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against 

Scott Lee Nokes, a Minnesota Attorney, 

Registration No. 0392060. 

ORDER 

fl 

Om:cEOF 

AJII'B.lA'IECGlRIS 

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition 

for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Scott Lee Nokes committed professional 

misconduct warranting public discipline. We referred the matter to a referee, who issued 

findings of facts, conclusions of law, and a recommendation for discipline. The referee 

found that respondent charged and attempted to collect an unreasonable, contingent fee to 

recover non-probate assets on behalf of a client, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 

1.5(a), and recommended that respondent be publicly reprimanded. 

Respondent and the Director entered into a stipulation for discipline in which they 

stipulated that the referee's findings and conclusions were conclusive and waived their 

rights under Rule 14, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), to briefing 

and oral argument before this court. The parties jointly recommend that the appropriate 

discipline is a public reprimand. 

The court has independently reviewed the file and approves the recommended 

disposition. 

1 
Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. Respondent Scott Lee Nokes is publicly reprimanded; and 

2. Respondent shall pay $900 in costs pursuant to Rule 24, RLPR. 

Dated: November 4, 2015 

2 

BY THE COURT: 

David R. Stras 

Associate Justice