alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

We, the undersigned, certify that, to
the best of our knowledge, this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
September 30, 2004, of CAPITAL REALTY INVESTORS-IV LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, and containing the
financial statements, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in this quarterly
report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the small business issuer.

|                  |  | CAPITAL REALTY INVESTORS-IV LIMITED     PARTNERSHIP                                                                                                   
|----------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                  |  | (Small Business Issuer)                                                                                                                               
|                  |  | by:  C.R.I., Inc.                                                                                                                                     
|                  |  | Managing General Partner                                                                                                                              
|November 15, 2004 |  | by:  /s/ William B. Dockser                                                                                                                           
|DATE              |  | William B. Dockser,
                  Director, Chairman of the Board,
                  and Treasurer
                  (Principal Executive Officer)
|November 15, 2004 |  | by:  /s/ Michael J. Tuszka                                                                                                                            
|DATE              |  | Michael J. Tuszka,
                  Vice President
                  and Chief Accounting Officer
                  (Principal Financial Officer)    

This
certification accompanies this quarterly report and is made solely for purpose of
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not
for any other purpose, and shall not be deemed filed by the small business issuer for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BANI JAHAXIEL MENDEZ-ROSALES,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-72330

Agency No. A099-581-149

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 19, 2013** 

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Bani Jahaxiel Mendez-Rosales, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

FILED

DEC 10 2013

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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

evidence factual findings and review de novo due process claims. Zetino v.

Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011-12 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Mendez-Rosales filed his

asylum application within a reasonable period of time after any extraordinary

circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5); Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172,

1181-82 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to his asylum claim.

Mendez-Rosales testified gang members in Guatemala confronted and

robbed him multiple times, and because he has lived in the United States, they

would think he has money and would try to harm him if he returned. Substantial

evidence supports the agency’s determination that Mendez-Rosales failed to

establish past persecution or a likelihood of future persecution on account of a

protected ground. See Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1016 (“An alien’s desire to be free from

harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members

bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). Accordingly, Mendez-Rosales’s

withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Mendez-Rosales’s

CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be

2 10-72330
tortured if returned to Guatemala. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073

(9th Cir. 2008).

Finally, we reject Mendez-Rosales’s contention that dismissal of his appeal

by a single member of the BIA violated due process. See Falcon Carriche v.

Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,

1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process

claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 10-72330
----

|  |  | I, Michael Luboschitz, certify that: |
|--|--|--------------------------------------|

|  | 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F/A of G. Willi-Food International Ltd.; and |
|--|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.Date: January 21, 2020 |
|--|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:/s/ Michael LuboschitzName: Michael LuboschitzTitle: Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

I, Theodore A. Babcock, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of TNP Enterprises, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statement 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, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, 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 disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we 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, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986] 

 

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

 

d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is 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 mostrecent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 controlover financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 3, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1794 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 274
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1794

                          [Report No. 106-828]

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 6, 2000

     Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                           September 7, 2000

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To designate the Federal courthouse at 145 East Simpson Avenue in 
  Jackson, Wyoming, as the ``Clifford P. Hansen Federal Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF CLIFFORD P. HANSEN FEDERAL COURTHOUSE.

    The Federal courthouse at 145 East Simpson Avenue in Jackson, 
Wyoming, shall be known and designated as the ``Clifford P. Hansen 
Federal Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal courthouse referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the Clifford P. Hansen 
Federal Courthouse.

            Passed the Senate March 2, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                    GARY SISCO,

                                                             Secretary.

                                                 House Calendar No. 274

106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1794

                          [Report No. 106-828]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To designate the Federal courthouse at 145 East Simpson Avenue in 
  Jackson, Wyoming, as the ``Clifford P. Hansen Federal Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 7, 2000

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
Exhibit 12.1  CERTIFICATION  I, Robert A. Mionis, certify that:  1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Celestica Inc.;  2.Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;  3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.The company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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company 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 company, 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.Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  c.Evaluated the effectiveness of the company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  d.Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and


5.The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of the company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 company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 companys internal control over financial reporting.   Date: March 7, 2016/s/ Robert A. MionisRobert   A. MionisChief   Executive Officer
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 176

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of alternatives

for commemorating and interpreting the history of the Harlem Renaissance, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANAURY 19, 1999

Mr. MOYNIHAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study

of alternatives for commemorating and interpreting the

history of the Harlem Renaissance, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Harlem Renaissance

5 Cultural Zone Act of 1999’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 Congress finds that—
2

•S 176 IS

1 (1) the Harlem Renaissance was the dominant

2 intellectual, literary, and artistic expression of the

3 New Negro Movement of the 1920’s;

4 (2) W.E.B. DuBois, James Weldon Johnson,

5 and Alain Locke planted the seeds of the New Negro

6 Movement, while Langston Hughes, Zora Neal

7 Hurston, Claude McKay, Countee Cullen, Jean

8 Toomer, and Wallace Thurman were among the

9 Movement’s most gifted writers; and

10 (3) the Harlem Renaissance also included the

11 music of Duke Ellington, the theatrical productions

12 of Eubie Blake, and the nightlife of the Cotton Club

13 and the Alhamba theaters.

14 SEC. 3. STUDY OF ALTERNATIVES FOR CULTURAL ZONE TO

15 COMMEMORATE AND INTERPRET HISTORY

16 OF THE HARLEM RENAISSANCE.

17 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior, act18 ing through the Director of the National Park Service,

19 shall conduct a study of alternatives for commemorating

20 and interpreting the history of the Harlem Renaissance.

21 (b) MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED.—The study

22 under subsection (a) shall include—

23 (1) consideration of the establishment of a new

24 unit of the National Park System;
3

•S 176 IS

1 (2) consideration of the establishment of var2 ious appropriate designations for sites relating to the

3 history of the Harlem Renaissance; and

4 (3) recommendations for cooperative arrange5 ments with State and local governments, historical

6 organizations, and other entities.

7 (c) STUDY PROCESS.—The Secretary shall—

8 (1) conduct the study with public involvement

9 and in consultation with State and local officials,

10 scholarly and other interested organizations, and in11 dividuals;

12 (2) complete the study as expeditiously as prac13 ticable after the date on which funds are made avail14 able; and

15 (3) on completion of the study, submit to the

16 Committee on Resources of the House of Represent17 atives and the Committee on Energy and Natural

18 Resources of the Senate a report on the findings and

19 recommendations of the study.

Æ
## THE STATE OF TEXAS MANDATE

TO THE 202ND DISTRIC T COURT OF BOWIE COU NTY, GREETINGS: Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 31st day of December, A.D. 2014, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Jason Massey, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee No. 06

- 14

- 00098

- CR

Trial Court No. 13F0017

- 202

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find reversible error in the judgment of
the court below. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order denying Jason Massey’s motion to suppress, and we remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We further order that the appell ee , The State of Texas , pay all costs of this appeal. WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YO U to observe the order of our said Court in this behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed. WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with the seal thereof annexed, at the City of T exarkana, this the 11th day of March , A.D. 2015

.

DEBRA K. AUTREY , Clerk
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50139 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. MARIA DEL CARMEN HERNANDEZ-AGUIRRE Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:06-CR-752-ALL
Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Maria Del Carmen Hernandez-Aguirre (Hernandez) appeals her sentence for illegal reentry after deportation in violation of8 U.S.C. § 1326. She contends that the 46-month sentence imposed was unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to meet the sentencing goals of18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Specifically, Hernandez argues that the sentence failed to account for the fact that her prior felony drug trafficking offense occurred when she was a teenager, this was her only prior offense, she entered the United States to see her eight-year old United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 28, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-50139

2 daughter, and she was not a danger to the public or l ikely to commit future crimes. Where the district court exercises its discretion to impose a sentence within a properly calculated guideline range, the sentence is presumptively reasonable, and this court may infer that the district court considered all the factors for a fair sentence set forth in the Guidelines. See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-70 (2007); United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). Here, the record reflects that the district court considered Hernandez’s arguments, the recommendations of the presentence report, the applicable guideline range, and the § 3553(a) factors. Hernandez has failed to demonstrate that the district court clearly erred in exercising its broad sentenc ing discretion by imposing a sentence that failed to account for sentencing factors entitled to significant weight, gave significant weight to improper or irrelevant factors, or represented a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors. See United States v. Nikonova, 480 F.3d 371, 376 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 163 (2007)

. In light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Hernandez challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury. This court has held that this issue is “fully foreclosed from further debate.” U nited States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.