alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.5

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Patrick J. Goodman,  Vice President and Treasurer of MidAmerican Funding, LLC
(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 of the  Company  for the  quarterly
         period ended  September 30, 2003 (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)); and

     (2) the  information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
         material respects,  the financial condition and result of operations of
         the Company.


Dated:  November 5, 2003





                             /s/ Patrick J. Goodman
                             ----------------------
                               Patrick J. Goodman
                          Vice President and Treasurer
                            (chief financial officer)
STATE v. Michael Anthony ELLIOTT.

No. 716P05-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 2, 2006.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Nifong, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th day of February 2006 by Defendant for Objections to the Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 2nd day of March 2006."
#### Operative Cake Corp., Appellant, v Edward Nassour et al., Defendants, and Aharon Nutovics, Respondent.

[801 NYS2d 358]

In a consolidated action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), dated August 11, 2003, which granted the motion of the defendant Aharon Nutovics to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

As alleged in the complaint, the plaintiff is a manufacturer of baked goods which it distributes, via independent contractor truck drivers, to small grocery stores in the New York metropolitan area. The complaint further alleges that the defendant Aharon Nutovics, in concert with others, misappropriated confidential information, including the customer lists of the *1021plaintiffs drivers, which he then used to create and operate a competing venture, the defendant King Edward Food Distribution Corp.

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), “[t]he sole criterion is whether ‘from [the complaint’s] four corners factual allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law’ ” *(Mayer v Sanders,*264 AD2d 827, 828 [1999], quoting *Guggenheimer v Ginzburg,*43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]). The court must accept the facts alleged in the pleading and the submissions in opposition to the motion as true, and accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference *(see Maldonado v Olympia Mech. Piping & Heating Corp.,*8 AD3d 348, 350 [2004]; *Kevin Spence & Sons v Boar’s Head Provisions Co.,*5 AD3d 352 [2004]).

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the complaint alleges a cognizable cause of action against Nutovics for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty *(see Don Buchwald & Assoc., Inc. v Marber-Rich,*11 AD3d 277 [2004]; *Shearson Lehman Bros. v Bagley,*205 AD2d 467 [1994]). Schmidt, J.P., S. Miller, Santucci and Skelos, JJ., concur.
STATE of North Carolina v. Gary Lee LAWRENCE, Jr.

No. 457PA04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 7, 2006.

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 165 N.C.App. 548, 599 S.E.2d 87 (2004), reversing in part and finding no error in part in judgments entered 9 July 2002 by Judge Jerry R. Tillett in Superior Court, Camden County. On 29 August 2005, defendant filed a motion for appropriate relief in this Court. Heard in the Supreme Court 16 November 2005.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Amy C. Kunstling, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellant.

Thomas K. Maher, Chapel Hill, for defendant-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in *State v. Markeith R. Lawrence,* ___ N.C. ___, 627 S.E.2d 609, 2006 WL 891104 (2006), we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals as to defendant's seven convictions for second-degree sexual offense. However, the portion of the Court of Appeals opinion finding no error in nine of defendant's convictions as specified in that opinion remains undisturbed. Pursuant to *Blakely v. Washington,* 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004) and *State v. Allen,* 359 N.C. 425, 615 S.E.2d 256 (2005), defendant's case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further remand to the trial court for resentencing consistent with *Blakely* and *Allen.*

REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

Justice TIMMONS-GOODSON did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
STATE v. SALINAS.

No. COA05-1607.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed October 3, 2006

Certification Date October 23, 2006.

Appeal from Union (04CRS51839)

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
TILLMAN v. COMMERCIAL CREDIT.

No. 360A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 20, 2006.

John Alan Jones, G. Christopher Olson, Raleigh, for Tillman and Richardson.

*63Jeffrey M. Young, Research Triangle Park, Christopher J. Willis, Richard H. Sinkfield, Atlanta, GA, for Commercial Credit, et al.

Carlene McNulty, Mallam J. Maynard, F. Paul Bland, Jr., Washington, DC, for NC Justice Center, et al.

Wendy I. Sexton, Raleigh, Alan S. Kaplinsky, Jeremy T. Rosenblum, Philadelphia, PA, Robert E. McKew, General Counsel and SVP, Washington, DC, for American Financial Ser., et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th day of November 2006 by American Financial Services Association, Chamber of Commerce of the USA and Consumer Bakers Association for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i). By order of the Court in conference this the 20th day of November 2006."
#### Estate of Fannie Giustino, Appellant, v Estate of Anthony DelPizzo, Respondent.

[799 NYS2d 909]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for conversion, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), dated January 3, 2005, as denied its motion for summary judgment and for a turnover order pursuant to CPLR 5225 (a).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

“The rule is clear that, to establish a cause of action in conversion, the plaintiff must show legal ownership or an immediate superior right of possession to a specific identifiable thing and must show that the defendant exercised an unauthorized dominion over the thing in question ... to the exclusion of the plaintiffs rights” *(Independence Discount Corp. v Bressner,*47 AD2d 756, 757 [1975]; *see Batsidis v Batsidis,*9 AD3d 342, 343 [2004]; *O’Callaghan v Stepfamily Found.,*292 AD2d 579, 580 [2002]).

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court correctly concluded that it failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and to possession of the disputed bank accounts by tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of a triable issue of fact (see *Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; *Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

Moreover, in the absence of a judgment, the issuance of a turnover order was inappropriate (see CPLR 5255 [a]). Adams, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Fisher, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLSEN CLEMENTE; MILANNE LIM

CLEMENTE,

 Petitioners,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-73894

Agency Nos. A098-410-380

 A098-410-381

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 22, 2015** 

Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Carlsen Clemente and Milanne Lim Clemente, natives and citizens of the

Philippines, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)

order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their

application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8

FILED

APR 29 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. 

Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 861-62 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny the petition for

review. 

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that petitioners failed

to establish changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse their untimely

asylum applications. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5); see also Ramadan v.

Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 657-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Thus, petitioners’

asylum claim is time-barred. 

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that petitioners

failed to establish past persecution or fear of future persecution on account of a

protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010)

(petitioner’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or

random violence” lacks nexus); Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 967 (9th Cir. 1998)

(petitioner must show particularized risk). Thus, petitioners’ withholding of

removal claim fails. In light of this determination, we need not reach petitioners’

arguments regarding particular social group or political opinion. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 10-73894
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  Imperial  Petroleum  Recovery
Corporation; (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending October 31, 2005
(the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, I, Edward C. Gaiennie,  Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer, hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Sec. 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, as amended; and

2. The  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


By: /s/ Edward C. Gaiennie                                   March 20, 2006
   --------------------------------------------------
   Edward C. Gaiennie
   CFO, Secretary-Treasurer and Principal Accounting Officer
IN RE P.L.C.

No. COA06-118.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed August 15, 2006.

Certification Date September 5, 2006.

Appeal from Catawba (03J239).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
RUTTER v. CITIBUSINESS CARD; RUTTER v. MECKLENBURG COUNTY CITI CARD.

No. COA05-1463.

No. COA05-1464.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed August 15, 2006.

Certification Date September 5, 2006.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (05CVD8869, 05CVD8870).

Case reported without published opinion. Vacated.
**Exhibit
      32.2**




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED


PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Certification
      of CFO




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of KH Funding Company (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James E. Parker,
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C.
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:




(3)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and
                15(d) of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




(4)
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
                Company.




Dated:
                November 17, 2006
            
            /s/
              James E. ParkerJames
                E. ParkerChief
                Financial Officer




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 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.




This
      certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-QSB pursuant to Section 906
      of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
      by
      such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such
      certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
      under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to
      the
      extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
STATE v. THOMAS

No. COA04-1139

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed August 16, 2005

Certification Date September 6, 2005

Appeal from Pitt (03CRS11273).

Cases reported without published opinion. No error in part, remanded for resentencing.
IN RE K.S.

No. COA06-777.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 6, 2007.

Certification Date February 26, 2007.

Appeal from the Beaufort (03J68, 03J69).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 15, 2018

NO. 03-17-00691-CR

Eddie Lynn Tackett, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 391ST DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgment of conviction. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of 

conviction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs 

is made.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE FOR YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,1998 HAS BEEN RESTATED TO
PRESENT DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,315
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   86,073
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     10,144
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               113,560
<PP&E>                                          71,430
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,765
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 431,685
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           73,635
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           146
<OTHER-SE>                                     284,792
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   431,685
<SALES>                                        258,782
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               258,782
<CGS>                                          168,465
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  168,465
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                57,102
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,391
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 29,824
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,780
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,044
<DISCONTINUED>                                     191
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,235
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.35


</TABLE>
HILL v. HILL, et al.

No. 638P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 2, 2006.

W. Scott Jones, Asheville, for Garford Tony Hill, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th day of November 2005 by Plaintiff for Temporary Stay:

"Motion for Stay Dissolved by order of the Court in conference this the 2nd day of March 2006."

Justice MARTIN recused.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           4,067
<SECURITIES>                                     2,360
<RECEIVABLES>                                       81
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,788
<PP&E>                                          20,666
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,323
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,878
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,123
<BONDS>                                          8,085
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     44,993
<COMMON>                                         6,212
<OTHER-SE>                                     (43,535)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,878
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   806
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,325
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,422
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 114
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (10,901)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (10,901)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (10,901)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.11)


</TABLE>
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MAY 28, 2010

JOHN LEY

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 09-16355

Non-Argument Panel

_____________

D.C. Docket No. 07-02265-CV-5-SLB 

ISMAEIL MOHAMMED ABU SALIM,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

SECURITY, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

SERVICES,

Respondents-Appellees.

____________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

____________

(May 28, 2010)

Before MARCUS, MARTIN and HILL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal by Ismaeil Mohammed Abu Salim (Salim), a native and

citizen of Jordan, and a lawful permanent resident of the United States, from the

grant of summary judgment by the district court in favor of the Department of

Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS),

and the dismissal by the district court of Salim’s petition for review of his

application for naturalization. Under a de novo review, the district court found

that Salim had failed to meet his burden of showing that he met the good moral

character requirement for naturalization. 8 U.S.C. § 1421(g); 8 U.S.C. §

1427(a)(3).

By administrative order, the USCIS initially denied Salim’s application for

naturalization for lack of good moral character based upon his conviction for

selling alcohol to a minor. For this offense, Salim received a suspended sentence

and twelve months’ unsupervised probation. This conviction occurred within five

years immediately preceding the date of filing the application for naturalization. 

See 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a)(1). 

The district court agreed, finding that Salim did not submit any evidence of

extenuating circumstances for his unlawful acts. It granted USCIS’ motion for

2
summary judgment. 

We have carefully reviewed the record in this case, the briefs and the

arguments of counsel. Finding no error, the judgment of the district court is

affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

3
Cynthia Estelle BOOKER-DOUGLAS, Administratrix of the Estate of Leroy Douglas, Jr., Deceased Employee v. J & S TRUCK SERVICE, INC., Employer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Carrier.

No. 375P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

Kathleen G. Sumner, Greensboro, for Booker-Douglas.

Tonya D. Davis, Jeffrey A. Doyle, Raleigh, for Truck Service, et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 31st day of July 2006 by Defendants in this matter for discretionary review of the decision 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:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of October 2006."