alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, Timothy A. Bienek, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:   (a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;    (b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and    (c)Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):   (a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and    (b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: November 14, 2005       /s/ Timothy A. Bienek         Timothy A. Bienek    Executive Vice President and Chief Financial    Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
#### In re MEDICAL REVIEW PANEL FOR the CLAIM OF George H. BORNSIDE.

No. 2003-CD-2016.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re Pappas, Nicholas M.D.; — Other; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. G, No. 00-18304; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-C-1272.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.

WEIMER, J., would grant the writ.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YANAN FANG, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-73043 

Agency No. A201-208-875 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 15, 2019**

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. 

Yanan Fang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board 

of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s

(“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the 

* 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

OCT 22 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 18-73043 

agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 

2014). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Fang failed to 

establish that any harm he suffered or fears in China was or would be on account 

of his political opinion. See Lkhagvasuren v. Lynch, 849 F.3d 800, 802-03 (9th 

Cir. 2016) (discussing three-factor test set forth by Matter of N-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 

526, 532-33 (BIA 2011) for determining whether retaliation for whistleblowing 

constitutes persecution on account of political opinion); Pagayon v. Holder, 675 

F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (a personal dispute, standing alone, does not 

constitute persecution based on a protected ground). Thus, Fang’s asylum and 

withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 

Fang failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with 

the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Aden v. 

Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). 

To the extent Fang contends that the IJ was biased, we reject this contention 

as without merit.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Drew Anthony Nickason

, * From the 441st District

Court of Midland County,

Trial Court No. CR39587

.

Vs. No. 11

- 12

- 00356

- CR * October 23, 2014

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Willson, J.

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is

no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
STATE v. Quintel Martinez AUGUSTINE

130A03-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 17, 2018

Ms. Gretchen Engel, Durham, Attorney at Law, for Augustine, Quintel Martinez

Mr. James E. Ferguson, II, Charlotte, Attorney at Law, for Augustine, Quintel Martinez

Ms. Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Mr. Jonathan P. Babb, Raleigh, Special Counsel to Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Mr. Grady Jessup, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Association of Black Lawyers

Ms. Lisa A. Bakale-Wise, Attorney at Law, for N.C. State Conference of the NAACP

Mr. Irving Joyner, Durham, Attorney at Law, for N.C. State Conference of the NAACP

Mr. Edward Joseph Blocher, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Social Scientists

Ms. Janet Moore, Attorney at Law, for National Association for Public Defense

Mr. Robert P. Mosteller, Attorney at Law, for Professors John Charles Boger & Robert P. Mosteller

Mr. Carlos E. Mahoney, Durham, Attorney at Law, for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Defense Fund, Inc.

Ms. Jin Hee Lee, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Defense Fund, Inc.

Mr. W. Kerrel Murray, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Defense Fund, Inc.

Ms. Cynthia F. Adcock, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Council of Churches

Mr. Burton Craige, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Advocates for Justice

Mr. Jeremy M. Falcone, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for Former State and Federal Prosecutors

Mr. William R. West, District Attorney, for State

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of July 2018 by Former State and Federal Prosecutors for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of July 2018."

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).
STATE of North Carolina v. Daniel Webster HOVIS

No. COA17-773

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: April 17, 2018

VACATED. REMANDED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Spence, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 845]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Efrain Alvarado, J.), rendered January 20, 1998, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 8 to 16 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the court’s determinations concerning credibility. Concur — Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of THOMAS PROPERTIES GROUP, INC. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | 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.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                        
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: August 9, 2006 |  | /s/ James A. Thomas    
|                      |  | James A. Thomas        
|                      |  | Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1350 and shall
not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended or incorporated by reference in any registration statement of the Company filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

A signed original 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.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2564
RHEVA A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLOTTESVILLE SCHOOL BOARD, Defendant - Appellee, and THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, Defendant.

No. 96-2692
RHEVA A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLOTTESVILLE SCHOOL BOARD, Defendant - Appellant,2 and THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, Defendant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-94-50-3-C) Submitted: April 30, 1998 Decided: May 18, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rheva A. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Leigh Guynn, Thomas Edward Ullrich, WHARTON, ALDHIZER & WEAVER, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Rheva A. Williams appeals the district court's orders adoptingthe reports and recommendations of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in this action challenging the termination of her employment with the Charlottesville Public School System. The School Board cross-appeals, challenging a single holding of the district court. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, weaffirm on the reasoning of the district court. Williams v. Charlottesville Sch. Bd. , No. CA-94-50-3-C (W.D. Va. Oct. 4, 1996; May 23, 1996). We deny the School Board's motion for certification of a question to the Virginia Supreme Court because the issue is not determinative of this appeal. See Boyd v. Bulala , 877 F.2d 1191, 1199 (4th Cir. 1989); Cross v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 873 F.2d 75, 75 (4th Cir. 1989); see also Va. Sup. Ct. R. 5:42. 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.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mewbourne Energy Partners 05-A, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, in the capacity as indicated below and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations of Registrant.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:                May 16, 2011



/s/ J. Roe BuckleyJ. Roe BuckleyChairman of the BoardExecutive Vice PresidentChief Financial OfficerMewbourne Development Corporation,Managing General Partner of the Registrant
#### Amelia A. MCCOMISKEY, Appellant, v. Bonnie MCCOMISKEY, Appellee.

No. 5D02-3534.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

July 29, 2003.

Jean Desrosiers-Moyer, Hollister, for Appellant.

William L. Townsend, Jr. of Walton *&*Townsend, P.A., Palatka, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See Shields v. Flinn,*528 So.2d 967 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).

GRIFFIN, ORFINGER and MONACO, JJ., concur.
Billy Bruce JUSTUS as Administrator of the Estate of Pamela Jane Justus v. Michael J. ROSNER, M.D.; Michael J. Rosner, M.D., P.A.; Fletcher Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Park Ridge Hospital; Adventist Health System; and Adventist Health System Sunbelt Healthcare Corporation

No. 255A17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 28, 2017

K. Edward Greene, Attorney at Law, Tobias S. Hampson, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Rosner, Michael J. (M.D.), et al.

Wade E. Byrd, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, for Justus, Billy Bruce.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Defendants (Michael J. Rosner, M.D. and Michael J. Rosner, M.D., P.A.) on the 26th of July 2017 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of September 2017."

Accordingly, the new brief of the Defendants shall be filed with this Court not more than 30 days from the date of certification of this order.
Exhibit 32.3

Written Statement of the Chief Operating Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, the undersigned President and Chief Operating Officer of Regency Centers Corporation, the general
partner of Regency Centers, L.P.(the Partnership), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Partnership for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Partnership.

Date: March 9, 2006

|                                                                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                     
|/s/ Mary Lou Fiala                                                                   
|Mary Lou Fiala                                                                       
|Chief Operating Officer of Regency Centers Corporation, general partner of registrant
In the MATTER OF Raymond JUIWEN HO.

S18Y1037

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: May 21, 2018

Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel State Bar, Jenny K. Mittelman, Jonathan W. Hewett, Assistant General Counsel State Bar, for State Bar of Georgia.

PER CURIAM.

*751This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the petition for voluntary surrender of license filed by Raymond Juiwen Ho (State Bar No. 358112), pursuant to Bar Rules 4-110 (f) and 4-227 (b) (2). In his petition, Ho, who was a member of the Bar beginning in 1994 but purportedly resigned effective July 25, 2017, admits that he was a participant in a money laundering conspiracy, which began in March 2013 and ended in February 2017, and that in October 2017, he pled guilty to felony money laundering, 18 USC § 1956 (a) (3), and money laundering conspiracy, 18 USC § 1956 (h), and was subsequently sentenced to 84 months confinement in the federal Bureau of Prisons, 3 years supervised release, $2,046,518.48 in restitution, and a $200 special assessment. He admits in accordance with his written plea agreement that he "controlled and utilized in the offense conduct, among other bank accounts, two of his Interest on Lawyer's *752Trust Accounts (IOLTA)," that he deposited certain funds in and disbursed funds from those IOLTA accounts, and that the funds were not client funds or funds he held in any fiduciary capacity, but funds laundered using the IOLTA accounts as part of the criminal conspiracy.

Ho acknowledges that the above-described conduct violated Rules 1.15 (I) (a), 1.15 (II) (b), and 8.4 (a) (4) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The maximum penalty for a single violation of any of these rules is disbarment. Given his admissions, and in spite of his earlier resignation, Ho requests that the Court accept his petition for the voluntary surrender of his license, which is tantamount to disbarment.

The State Bar recommends that this Court accept Ho's petition for voluntary surrender of license, and based upon our review of the petition, we agree that acceptance of Ho's petition is in the best interests of the Bar and the public. See *In the Matter of McKanders*, 254 Ga. 636, 332 S.E.2d 292 (1985) (conviction on 12 counts of conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States warranted acceptance of voluntary surrender of license); *In the Matter of Calhoun*, 268 Ga. 675, 492 S.E.2d 514 (1997) (convictions for money laundering and aiding and abetting warranted disbarment). Accordingly, the name of Raymond Juiwen Ho is hereby removed from the rolls of persons entitled to practice law in the State of Georgia. Ho is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

*Voluntary surrender of license accepted.*

All the Justices concur.
STATE v. Stephen KYPRIANIDES

26P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 1, 2018

Stephen Kyprianides, for Kyprianides, Stephen.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, Valerie Mitchell Asbell, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of January 2018 by Defendant-Appellant for Notice of Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-13-00146-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF T.R.Z., J.M.A., H.A.A., and I.A.

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-PA-03206

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 28, 2013

AFFIRMED

This is an appeal from the trial court’s termination of Appellant I.A. Sr.’s parental rights 

to T.R.Z., J.M.A., H.A.A., and I.A. The trial court terminated Appellant’s parental rights based 

on grounds set forth in Texas Family Code section 161.001. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.

§ 161.001(1)(E), (N), (O), (Q) (West Supp. 2012). The court also determined that terminating 

Appellant’s parental rights was in the best interest of each child: T.R.Z., J.M.A., H.A.A., and I.A.

See id. § 161.001(2) (West 2008).

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of 

the record and demonstrating there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Therefore, counsel 

concludes the appeal is without merit. See Fletcher v. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 277 

S.W.3d 58, 64 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (affirming a judgment because the 
04-13-00146-CV

judgment could be upheld on an unchallenged ground). The brief meets the requirements of 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. App.—

Dallas 2009, pet. denied) (applying Anders procedure in an appeal from termination of parental 

rights); In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.); In re 

RR, No. 04–03–00096–CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 21, 2003, 

no pet.) (mem. op.); In re K.S.M., 61 S.W.3d 632, 634 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2001, no pet.). Counsel 

provided Appellant with a copy of the Anders brief and informed him of his right to review the 

record and file a pro se brief. Appellant has not filed a pro se brief.

After reviewing the record, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The 

judgment of the trial court is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. See Nichols 

v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85–86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 

S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). 

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

- 2 -
Table of Contents


EXHIBIT 13.1

TELEMIG CELULAR PARTICIPACOES S.A.CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ENACTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Telemig Celular Participações S.A. (the "Company") is filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, on the date hereof, its annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report"). Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as enacted pursuant to the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Antônio José Ribeiro dos Santos , the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge:  
(A) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  
(B) the information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  
Date: June 30, 2005

|                                    |  | 
|----------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ Antônio José Ribeiro dos Santos |  | 
|Antônio José Ribeiro dos Santos     |  | 
|Chief Executive Officer             |  | 

---