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

                 STRATFORD AMERICAN CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
          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 Quarterly Report of Stratford American Corporation and
Subsidiaries ("the Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), we, Mel L. Shultz, President and Director of the Company, David H.
Eaton, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of the Company, and
Daniel E. Matthews, Controller, Secretary and Treasurer 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 the Report 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/  Mel L. Shultz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mel L. Shultz, President and Director
August 16, 2004



/s/  David H. Eaton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David H. Eaton, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
August 16, 2004



/s/  Daniel E. Matthews
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel E. Matthews, Controller, Secretary and Treasurer
August 16, 2004
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4743 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Diresul Brown FS Liquid Crude. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 25, 2004 

Mrs. MYRICK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Diresul Brown FS 

Liquid Crude. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON DIRESUL BROWN FS 

4 LIQUID CRUDE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.35.07 Diresul Brown FS Liquid 

Crude (leuco sulfur dye) 

(provided for in subheading 

3204.19.50) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
2 

•HR 4743 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23




                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectuses
constituting part of the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 33-44312,
33-45651, 33-49775, 33-55851, 33-64193, 333-01723, 333-01121, 333-15079,
333-15079-1 through 4, 333-20427, and 333-20427-1 through 3) and in the
Registration Statements on Form S-8, as amended, (Nos. 33-61167, 33-61181,
33-65065, 33-49267, 33-32659, 33-49419 and 33-63659) of our report dated January
8, 1997 appearing on page 34 of the J. P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated Annual
Report, which is included as exhibit 13 to Form 10-K for the year ended 
December 31, 1996.


/s/ PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP
------------------------
Price Waterhouse LLP
New York, New York
March 24, 1997
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         202,206
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  945,438
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,598,580
<PP&E>                                       4,621,001
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,856,492
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,399,839
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,620,980
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       238,145
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  3,518,694
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,516,335
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,399,839
<SALES>                                      1,601,353
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,601,353
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  754,015
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               547,276
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             140,204
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                167,034
<INCOME-TAX>                                    74,000 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             93,034
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    93,034
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00 
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

REENA RAUT, 

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney

General, 

Respondent.

No. 14-71430

Agency No. A089-673-165

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 14, 2016** 

San Francisco, California

Before: KOZINSKI, BYBEE and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

1. Petitioner Reena Raut argues that the Immigration Judge (IJ) and the

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) improperly relied on the asylum officer’s

notes in their adverse credibility determinations. The officer took detailed notes

FILED

DEC 16 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* 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).
page 2

and testified about the procedures he used to ensure that Raut understood his

questions and that he accurately recorded the interview. The BIA reasonably

concluded that the officer “was a reliable impeachment source.” Li v. Ashcroft,

378 F.3d 959, 963 (9th Cir. 2004). Raut made inconsistent statements about her

persecution. Her varied explanations were not persuasive. Thus, the agency’s

adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence. 

2. A petitioner must satisfy the Lozada elements to make an ineffective

assistance of counsel claim. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1089–90 (9th

Cir. 2010); Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). Strict compliance

with Lozada is not required when counsel’s ineffectiveness is plain on the face of

the record. Tamang, 598 F.3d at 1090. Raut argues that her counsel erred by not

laying a foundation for her supporting documents. But Raut’s counsel did ask

some foundational questions, and all documents were admitted for the IJ’s

consideration. Thus, there was no plain error warranting a waiver of Lozada’s

procedural requirements.

DENIED.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-2947

___________

Joshua J. Israel, *

*

Petitioner, *

*

v. * Petition for Review of an

* Order of the United States

* Department of Labor.

Department of Labor, Administrative *

Review Board, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: May 7, 2012

Filed: May 10, 2012 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Joshua J. Israel filed an administrative complaint, alleging that his employer

retaliated against him for engaging in activities protected under the Surface

Transportation Assistance Act. An administrative law judge recommended denying

Israel’s complaint. The United States Department of Labor Administrative Review

Board (ARB) reviewed the administrative law judge’s recommendation and issued

a final decision denying Israel’s complaint. Israel petitions for review. 
Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the ARB’s decision is

not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, contrary to the law, or unsupported

by substantial evidence in the record. See 49 U.S.C. § 31105(d) (appellate court

reviews ARB’s decision pursuant to Administrative Procedure Act (APA)); 5 U.S.C.

§ 706(2) (reviewing court shall hold unlawful and set aside agency decisions if they

are found to be arbitrary, capricious, abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in

accordance with law, or if unsupported by substantial evidence in record as whole);

see also R&B Transp., LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Admin. Review Bd., 618 F.3d 37,

44 (1st Cir. 2010) (ARB’s final decision is reviewed in accordance with APA). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
|EXHIBIT 12                                                  
|------------------------------------------------------------
|COMPUTATION IN SUPPORT OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
|For Year Ended December 31, 2000                            
|(Dollar Amounts in Thousands)                               





|                                         | Monongahela Power Company
|---------------------------------------- | -------------------------
|Earnings:                                |                          
|Net Income                               | $                        
|Fixed charges (see below)                | 49,086                   
|Income taxes                             | 52,484                   
|Amortization of capitalized interest     | 5                        
|Income distributions of equity investees | 8,640                    
|Less: Capitalized interest               | (487)                    
|Inc from unconsolidated equity           |                          
|investees                                |                          
|Total earnings                           | $                        
|                                         |                          
|Fixed Charges:                           |                          
|Interest on long-term debt               | $                        
|Other interest                           | 3,785                    
|Estimated interest component of rentals  | $                        
|Total fixed charges                      | $                        
|                                         |                          
|Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges       | 4.04
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Imagenetix, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lowell W.
Giffhorn, 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:





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.





Dated:
      February 8, 2010
              /s/LOWELL W. GIFFHORNLowell
      W. GiffhornChief
      Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer of GFI Group Inc.  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 GFI Group Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Gooch, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to the 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



Date:
March 15, 2010

/s/ MICHAEL GOOCHMichael Gooch Chairman of the Board
Chief Executive Officer


---



QuickLinks
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).

JT/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN XU,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-71722

Agency No. A095-881-094

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 16, 2010** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Juan Xu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration

judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

FILED

FEB 25 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
JT/Research 2 07-71722

relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Singh v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 1164,

1168 (9th Cir. 2004), and we grant the petition for review, and remand.

Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s adverse credibility

determination because the date discrepancies identified by the agency are minor

and do not go to the heart of Xu’s claim. See Bandari v. INS, 227 F.3d 1160, 1166

(9th Cir. 2000). Moreover, the agency erroneously relied on the asylum officer’s

interview notes, which were not sufficiently reliable to impeach Xu’s testimony. 

See Singh v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1081, 1089-90 (9th Cir. 2005). Finally, because

none of the agency’s adverse credibility findings are supported, Xu was not

required to provide corroboration. See Kaur v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 876, 890 (9th

Cir. 2004).

Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, and remand Xu’s claims to

the BIA on an open record. See Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1093-96

(9th Cir. 2009); see also INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm







The Board of Directors


Ruby Tuesday, Inc.:




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-162394, 002-97170, 033-32697, 333-03165, 033-20585, 333-39321, 333-03157, 002-97170, 033-13593, 033-70490, 333-03153, 033-46218, 033-46220, 033-56452, 333-03155, 333-77965, 333-88879, 333-39231, 333-100738 and 333-122124) on Form S-8 and (Nos. 033-57159 and 333-160216) on Form S-3 of Ruby Tuesday, Inc. of our reports dated August 1, 2011, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Ruby Tuesday, Inc. and subsidiaries as of May 31, 2011 and June 1, 2010, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended May 31, 2011, and the related financial statement schedule, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of May 31, 2011, which reports appear in the May 31, 2011 annual report on Form 10-K of Ruby Tuesday, Inc.











/s/ KPMG LLP


Louisville, Kentucky


August 1, 2011
EXHIBIT 10.5



EXHIBIT 10.5

 

AMENDMENT TO RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AGREEMENT

          This Amendment to Restricted Stock Unit Agreements ("Amendment") is made and entered into as of December 5, 2005 by and between Computer Sciences Corporation, a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), and the undersigned director of the Company (the "Director"), for the purpose of amending the restricted stock unit agreement dated as of [DATE] by and between the Company and the Director (the "Agreement").

          NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby amend the Agreement, effective as of the date hereof, as follows:
1.     The following sentence is hereby deleted from Section 9(c) of the Agreement:

"Notwithstanding the foregoing, any election made pursuant to this Section 9(c) may be superseded by a subsequent election from the above choices; provided, however, that no subsequent election pursuant to this section 9(c) shall be effective unless it is made at least 13 months prior to the Termination Date."

2.     The following sentence is hereby deleted from Section 9(d) of the Agreement:

"Notwithstanding the foregoing, any election made pursuant to this Section 9(d) may be superseded by a subsequent election from the above choices; provided, however, that no subsequent election pursuant to this section 9(d) shall be effective unless it is made at least 13 months prior to the Termination Date."




          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written.



	
 
	
COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION

	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 

	
 
	
By                                                                       

	
 
	
     Van B. Honeycutt

	
 
	
     Chairman and Cheif Executive Officer

	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 

	
 
	
DIRECTOR

	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 

	
 
	
                                                                            

	
 
	
[NAME]
* 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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED March 28, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-30867 Summary Calendar

WILLIE L WASHINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus VENETIA MICHAEL; MICHAEL RHODES; CHAROLETTE APPEL; INSURANCE CO., Unknown, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:03-CV-1586-DEW

-------------------- Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Willie L. Washington, Louisiana prisoner # 77381, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights action against various prison officials for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In addition to arguing the merits of his case, Washington argues on appeal that he “made not one (1), but two (2) attempts to file Administrative Remedies,” both of which were rejected, and that an administrative remedy procedure (ARP) screeningNo. 04-30867 -2- officer stated in a memorandum to Washington, “Once an ARP has been rejected, you have exhausted your Administrative Remedies.” However, in the district court, Washington did not object to, but agreed with, the magistrate judge’s finding that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Accordingly, our review is for plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n , 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc). Washington has not shown that he has exhausted his administrative remedies; he does not argue that he appealed the rejection of either ARP or that the second ARP was an appeal of the first, and there is no indication of this in the record. See 22 L A . A DMIN . C ODE , Pt. I, § 325(G)(1), (2). Furthermore, because the memorandum is not in the record on appeal and was in fact written after the district court entered its decision, this court need not consider it as evidence of an administrative procedural policy, futility, or a waiver of the exhaustion requirement. See Theriot v. Parish of Jefferson , 185 F.3d 477, 491 n.26 (5th Cir. 1999) (appellate court may not consider evidence presented for first time on appeal or facts not before the district court at the time of the district court’s ruling). Accordingly, the district court did not plainly err in dismissing Washington’s complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CAPITAL
GROWTH, INC. MARCH 31, 1996 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL INFORMATION
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                              88
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    88
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      88
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,392
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        42,500
<OTHER-SE>                                    (68,804)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        88
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,249
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,249)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,249)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,249)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.00)
        

</TABLE>