alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Macquarie Infrastructure Company LLC (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Todd Weintraub, Chief Financial 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, to the best of my
knowledge and belief:





(1) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(b) 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.




/s/ Todd
      WeintraubTodd
      WeintraubChief
      Financial OfficerFebruary
      25, 2010




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.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Rachael Whitefield","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/rachaellwhitefield-2-2-2\/","title":"Jasmin Moghbeli","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"T8W35N8MVt\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/jasmin-moghbeli\/\">Jasmin Moghbeli<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/jasmin-moghbeli\/embed\/#?secret=T8W35N8MVt\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Jasmin Moghbeli” — NASA\" data-secret=\"T8W35N8MVt\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/jsc2017e116310_0-1.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":750}
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 433 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                          May 21, 1998.
Whereas approximately 90 witnesses in the campaign finance investigation have 
        either asserted a fifth amendment privilege or fled the country to avoid 
        testifying in congressional investigations;
Whereas prominent among those who have asserted the fifth amendment privilege or 
        fled the country to avoid testifying are former political appointees and 
        friends of the President of the United States, such as former Associate 
        Attorney General Webster Hubbell; former Department of Commerce 
        political appointee John Huang; former Presidential trade commission 
        appointee Charlie Trie; former senior Presidential aide Mark Middleton; 
        longtime Presidential friends James and Mochtar Riady, as well as 
        family, friends, and associates of some of these individuals;
Whereas when the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Louis Freeh 
        testified before the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee on 
        December 9, 1997, he had the following exchange with the Chairman of the 
        Committee:

    Mr. Burton: Mr. Freeh, over 65 (at that time) people have invoked the 
Fifth Amendment or fled the country in the course of the committee's 
investigation. Have you ever experienced so many unavailable witnesses in 
any matter in which you have prosecuted or in which you have been involved?

    Mr. Freeh: Actually, I have.

    Mr. Burton: You have. Give me a run-down on that real quickly.

    Mr. Freeh: I spent about 16 years doing organized crime cases in New 
York City, and many people were frequently unavailable.

Whereas never in the recent history of congressional investigations has Congress 
        been faced with so many witnesses who have asserted fifth amendment 
        privileges or fled the country to avoid testifying in a congressional 
        investigation; and
Whereas the unavailability of witnesses has severely limited the public's right 
        to know about campaign finance violations which occurred over the past 
        several years and related matters: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That--
            (1) the House of Representatives urges the President of the United 
        States to immediately call upon his friends, former associates and 
        appointees, and the associates of those individuals, who have asserted 
        fifth amendment privileges or fled the country to avoid testifying in 
        congressional investigations, to come forward and testify fully and 
        truthfully before the relevant committees of Congress; and
            (2) that the President of the United States should use all legal 
        means at his disposal to compel people who have left the country to 
        return and cooperate with the investigation.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED
STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63
of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as principal executive officer of Xerium Technologies, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify that, to his
knowledge:

1) the Companys Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2) the information contained in the Companys Form 10-K for the
period ended December 31, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Stephen R. LightStephen R. Light
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)


Dated: March 11, 2011
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted), Carlos A. Rivas, the Chief Executive Officer of Verenium Corporation (the Company), and John A. McCarthy, Jr., the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



|1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the Periodic
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Periodic
Report and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Periodic Report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                |  |  |  |                                                     
|----------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 10, 2008                        |  |  |  |                                                     
|                                                |  | 
|/s/ CARLOS A. RIVA                              |  |  |  | /s/ JOHN A. McCARTHY, JR.                           
|Carlos A. Riva                                  |  |  |  | John A. McCarthy, Jr.                               
|President, Chief Executive Officer and Director |  |  |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filling of Verenium Corporation under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form
10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
9241.

#### City of Atlanta, *v.*Hendricks.

Luke, <L

1. When a petition is good as against a general demurrer, an oral motion, made at time of trial, to dismiss the action because the allegations of negligence are too general, will not take the place of a timely special demurrer. The’court did not"err in overruling the oral motion to dismiss the case.

*401Decided May 17, 1918.

Action for damages; from city court of Atlanta—Judge Eeid. September 8, 1917.

*J. L. Mayson, -S. D. Hewlett,*for plaintiff in error.

*Colquitt & Conyers,*contra.

2. Exception to a refusal to grant a nonsuit will not-be considered by this court, where the cause proceeded to verdict, and where further exception is taken to the overruling of a motion for a new trial in which error is assigned on the insufficiency of the evidence to support verdict. The question thus raised is merged into the motion for a new trial and becomes a part of the general grounds of the motion.

3. The court fairly and fully submitted to the jury the contentions and issues raised by the pleadings; and the evidence authorized the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge. It was not error, for any reason assigned, to overrule the motion for a new trial.

*■Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, G. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.*
#### Earnest P. CLARK, Petitioner, v. EASTERN ASSOCIATED COAL CORPORATION; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.

No. 04-1730.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 24, 2004.

Decided Dec. 21, 2004.

S.F. Raymond Smith, Rundle & Rundle, L.C., Pineville, West Virginia, for Petitioner. Mark E. Solomons, Laura Metcoff Klaus, Greenberg Traurig, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Respondent Eastern Associated Coal Corporation.

Before LUTTIG, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Earnest P. Clark seeks review of a decision and order of the Benefits Review Board (“Board”) affirming the administrative law judge’s denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-45 (2000). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. *See Clark v. Eastern Associated Coal Corp.,*No. 03-0631-BLA (BRB April 29, 2004). 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.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1724

MAX MALEKE; SILVANA SUMILAT,

Petitioners,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the

United States,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A78-586-537; A78-586-538)

Submitted: May 31, 2006 Decided: June 16, 2006

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alfred L. Robertson, Jr., STEPHEN J. SHEEHY III & ASSOCIATES,

Annandale, Virginia, for Petitioners. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant

Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director,

Diane Kelleher, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C.,

for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*Petitioners filed only one application for asylum. Sumilat

was identified as a beneficiary of Maleke’s application for asylum,

and did not apply for asylum in her own right.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Max Maleke and his wife, Silvana Sumilat, natives and

citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of an order of the Board

of Immigration Appeals affirming, without opinion, the immigration

judge’s denial of their application for asylum.* We dismiss the

petition for review for lack of jurisdiction.

Petitioners challenge the immigration judge’s denial of

the application for asylum and the finding that the application was

untimely filed. Petitioners also requested that this court order

a new proceeding regarding changed country conditions in Indonesia.

The Attorney General contends that Petitioners waived these

arguments because they did not raise them on appeal to the Board.

Failure to raise arguments before the Board constitutes a waiver of

those issues and precludes review by this court. See Gonahasa v.

INS, 181 F.3d 538, 544 (4th Cir. 1999). Our review of Petitioners’

brief to the Board supports the Attorney General’s argument, and we

therefore do not review the underlying merits of these claims.

As for the denial of Petitioners’ request for asylum, we

conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the immigration

judge’s determination that Petitioners failed to file within one

year of the date of their arrival in the United States. See 8

U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (2000). Whether the application was filed
- 3 -

within one year of Petitioners’ admission to the United States is

a question of fact; accordingly, this court has no jurisdiction to

review the determination that the application was untimely. See 8

U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000); Chen v. United States Dep’t of Justice,

434 F.3d 144, 150-54 (2nd Cir. 2006) (collecting cases). Given

this jurisdictional bar, we cannot review the underlying merits of

Petitioners’ asylum claims.

We therefore dismiss the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 426 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                          May 13, 1998.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 3534) to improve congressional deliberation on proposed Federal 
private sector mandates, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
shall be dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for 
failure to comply with section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are 
waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
hour equally divided and controlled by chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Rules. After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
amendment under the five-minute rule. The amendment recommended by the Committee 
on Rules now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted in the House and 
in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the 
original bill for the purpose of further amendment. The bill shall be considered 
as read. During consideration of the bill for further amendment, the Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the 
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of 
rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further 
consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting 
on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without 
intervening business, provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on 
the first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of 
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
bill, as amended, to the House with such further amendments as may have been 
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion 
to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
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

KEITH KEMP,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

HOWARD SKOLNIK, Director of

NDOC; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 12-16259

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02002-PMPVCF

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 14, 2013** 

Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Keith Kemp appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of various

rights stemming from his placement in segregated housing. We have jurisdiction

FILED

AUG 19 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-16259

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for

failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117

(9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Kemp’s claims alleging improper

classification and retaliatory transfer because Kemp failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85,

93-95 (2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” is mandatory and requires

adherence to administrative procedural rules). 

Because Kemp does not raise any arguments regarding the district court’s

dismissal of the remaining counts of his Sixth Amended Complaint, he waives any

such challenge on appeal. See Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir.

1994) (“We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a

party’s opening brief. We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a

bare assertion does not preserve a claim . . . .” (internal citation omitted)).

 The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Kemp’s untimely

motion for an extension of time to oppose defendants’ motion to dismiss. See

Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258-59 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting

forth the standard of review for extension requests.)
3 12-16259

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Kemp’s motion for

reconsideration because Kemp failed to establish grounds for such relief. See Sch.

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.

1993) (setting forth the standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).

Kemp’s contention that the district court improperly denied his motions for a

preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order requesting access to the

prison law library and legal assistance is unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.