alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           CERTIFICATIONS 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 amended quarterly report of Novagen Solar Inc. on Form
10-Q  for  the  quarter  ended  June  30,  2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas Mills, President,
Chief  Executive  Officer,  Chief  Financial  Officer  and  Principal Accounting
Officer  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:

(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.




Date: August 20, 2010                         By /s/ Thomas Mills
                                              Thomas Mills
                                              President, Chief Executive Officer
                                              Chief Financial Officer, and
                                              Principal Accounting Officer
# C_2010182EN.01000201.xml

| 7.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5878 — CVC/Caixanova/R Cable)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 182/02

On 28 May 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5878. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5878. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
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

CARLOS PEREZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-73202

Agency No. A070-774-287

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 14, 2013** 

Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Carlos Perez, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions pro se for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding,

and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is

FILED

MAY 20 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-73202

governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. 

Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and

dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Perez failed to

establish harm rising to the level of past persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333

F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003) (no past persecution where petitioner was not

harmed). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Perez failed

to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution in Peru. See Duarte de

Guinac v. INS, 179 F.3d 1156, 1159 (9th Cir. 1999) (alien must adduce “credible,

direct, and specific evidence in the record of facts that would support a reasonable

fear of persecution”). Accordingly, Perez’s asylum claim fails.

Because Petitioner failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily

failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye

v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Perez failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he will be tortured by

or with the consent or acquiescence of the Peruvian government. See Silaya v.

Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
3 11-73202

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to address Perez’s request that we remand the

case for consideration of Perez’s eligibility for cancellation of removal, because

Perez did not exhaust the issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d

674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

I, Akbar H. Firdosy, certify that: 

 

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Infonet Services Corporation; 

 

2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial 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 report; 

 

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4.    The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols 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 oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)    Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’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 changein the registrant’s internal control over financial 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 has materially affected, oris reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5.    The registrant’s other certifying officers 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 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 reportingwhich 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 theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 22,2003
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5301 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5301

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit the Secretary of 
  Veterans Affairs from requiring a surviving spouse of a veteran to 
     return certain payments for a month in which the veteran dies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 15, 2018

Mr. DeFazio (for himself, Mr. Jones, Mr. Turner, Mr. Wittman, Ms. Shea-
Porter, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Cole, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Pearce, Ms. 
 Lofgren, Ms. Jackson Lee, Ms. Velazquez, Ms. Gabbard, Ms. Rosen, Ms. 
    Pingree, Ms. Esty of Connecticut, Mr. Tipton, Mr. Courtney, Mr. 
Kennedy, Mr. Kilmer, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Mr. Capuano, and Mrs. Roby) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit the Secretary of 
  Veterans Affairs from requiring a surviving spouse of a veteran to 
     return certain payments for a month in which the veteran dies.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON REQUIREMENT FOR SURVIVING SPOUSE TO RETURN 
              CERTAIN PAYMENTS BY SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

    (a) Surviving Spouse Payment.--Section 5310 of title 38, United 
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
    ``(c) Treatment of Certain Checks and Payments.--In the case of a 
surviving spouse who was a dependent with respect to whom additional 
compensation for dependents was payable under section 1115 of this 
title, or additional pension as a married veteran under chapter 15, as 
of the date of the veteran's death, if a check or other payment issued 
to the veteran as a benefit payment under either such chapter for the 
month in which death occurs is negotiated, deposited, or otherwise 
accessed by the surviving spouse--
            ``(1) the check or payment shall be considered to be the 
        benefit payable to the surviving spouse under subsection 
        (a)(1), to the extent that the check or payment equals the 
        amount which would otherwise be payable under such subsection; 
        and
            ``(2) the Secretary may not require the surviving spouse to 
        return the check or payment.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take 
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply with 
respect to deaths that occur on or after that date.
                                 <all>
```
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

ROBERT EARL ROYSTER,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv194/MCR/EMT

ESCAMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE,

et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc.

1). By order dated June 11, 2010, the court noted that it was unclear whether Plaintiff intended to

file the complaint as an original complaint in a new civil rights action or as an amended complaint

in Royster v. Morgan, Case No. 3:10cv29/MCR/MD. The court therefore directed Plaintiff to clarify

his intent, by filing either a notice that the complaint was intended as an amended complaint in the

prior action or by paying the filing fee/seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a new action.

Plaintiff has now filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, thereby apparently

signaling his intent to proceed with a new action. Before the court proceeds further with this action,

however, Plaintiff shall be required to file a notice which (1) states whether he is incarcerated at

Florida State Hospital as a prisoner or is confined there simply as a nonprisoner patient, and (2)

verifies that he intends to initiate a new, separate action for which he must either prepay the filing

fee in full or demonstrate his eligibility to proceed in forma pauperis.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS from the date of docketing of this order, Plaintiff
Page 2 of 2

shall file a notice which (1) states whether he is incarcerated at Florida State Hospital as a prisoner

or is confined there simply as a nonprisoner patient, and (2) verifies that he intends to initiate a new,

separate action for which he must either prepay the filing fee in full or demonstrate his eligibility

to proceed in forma pauperis.

2. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order as instructed may result in a

recommendation that this case be dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the court.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of June 2010.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No. 3:10cv194/MCR/EMT
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CHRISTINA J MARQUIS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00217-MP -GRJ

MICHAEL J ASTRUE,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 17, Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, which recommends that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 11, be granted

and this case be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff has not objected to the

recommendation, and the time for doing so has passed. Finding no plain error, it is accordingly

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Doc. 17, is ADOPTED

and incorporated herein.

2. The Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 11, is GRANTED.

3. The Complaint, Doc. 1, is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of April, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:10-cv-00217-MP-GRJ Document 18 Filed 04/25/11 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 10.22**

 

**AMENDMENT TO THE BPZ ENERGY, INC. (n/k/a BPZ RESOURCES, INC.) 2007 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN**

 

**WHEREAS**, BPZ Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) adopted and maintains the BPZ Energy, Inc. 2007 Long-Term Incentive Compensation Plan (the “Plan”), effective as of June 4, 2007, to provide an opportunity for its eligible employees and certain independent contractors to earn long term incentive awards in consideration for their services;

 

**WHEREAS**, the Company now desires to amend the Plan to reserve additional shares for issuance under the Plan.

 

**NOW THEREFORE**, effective as of August 13th, the Plan is hereby amended by replacing Section 7(a) with the following new Section 7(a) that shall read as follows:

 

“(a)  Maximum Shares.  Subject to adjustment as provided in this Section 7, there is hereby reserved for issuance under the Plan up to 8,000,000 shares of Stock of the Company.”

 

*              *              *

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, BPZ Resources, Inc. has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized representatives on this 13th day of August, 2010.

 

 
| By:    | /s/ Manuel Pablo Zúñiga-Pflücker |   | By:    |  /s/ Edward   G. Caminos |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------------|
|   | Manuel Pablo Zúñiga-Pflücker     |   |   | Edward G. Caminos             |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer           |   |   | Chief Financial Officer       |

 

----
#### STATE v. SMITH

No. 120 PC.

Case below: 54 N.C. App. 493.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 12 January 1982. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 12 January 1982.
# C_2010168EN.01000101.xml

| 26.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5885 — Altarea/Predica/ABP/Aldeta)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 168/01

On 22 June 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5885. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5885. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
**
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

18U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,United States Code), the Trustee of Marine Petroleum Trust (the “Trust”) does hereby certify, to its knowledge, that: 

TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2018 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Trust fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Trust as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.

 
/s/ Ron E. HooperRon E. HooperSenior Vice President on behalf of Simmons Bank, not in its individual capacity but solely as the Trustee of Marine Petroleum Trust
Dated: February 11, 2019 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Trust and will be retained by the Trust and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated byreference into any filing of the Trust, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. 
**
# C_2010259EN.01000801.xml

| 25.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 259/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 259/8

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

24 September 2010

2010/C 259/04

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3412 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 113,20 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4505 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85345 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2070 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,3163 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,9475 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,633 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 278,75 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7095 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9763 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2418 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,9900 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4047 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3801 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,4043 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8351 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7758 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 540,60 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,4450 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,9966 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2940 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 010,22 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1483 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,853 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 41,3740 |
| THB | Thai baht | 41,155 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,3026 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,8626 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 60,6980 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3412

JPY

Japanese yen

113,20

DKK

Danish krone

7,4505

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85345

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2070

CHF

Swiss franc

1,3163

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,9475

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,633

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

278,75

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7095

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9763

RON

Romanian leu

4,2418

TRY

Turkish lira

1,9900

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4047

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3801

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,4043

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8351

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7758

KRW

South Korean won

1 540,60

ZAR

South African rand

9,4450

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,9966

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2940

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 010,22

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1483

PHP

Philippine peso

58,853

RUB

Russian rouble

41,3740

THB

Thai baht

41,155

BRL

Brazilian real

2,3026

MXN

Mexican peso

16,8626

INR

Indian rupee

60,6980

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 30, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
135435 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 135435 COA: 267192 Allegan CC: 05-014062-FC HAROLD EMMETT SHAFIER, III, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e October 30, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall address: (1) whether the defenda nt’s constitutional rights under Doyle v Ohio, 426 US 610, 619; 96 S Ct 2240; 49 L Ed 2d 91 (1976), were violat ed, (2) whether the claim of error under Doyle was properly preserved at trial, (3) the resulting appropriate standard of review on appeal, and (4) whether any erro r was harmless under the applicable standard of review.

We further ORDER the Allegan Circuit Co urt, in accordance with Administrative Order 2003-03, to determine wh ether the defendant is indige nt and, if so, to appoint counsel to represent the de fendant in this Court.

The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan ar e invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determinati on of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

p0423 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 30, 2008

Clerk