alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**CERTIFICATE      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (1)    | The                Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material                respect, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                            |

|   | /s/              *John Farley*         |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
| Name:  | John              Farley               |
| Title: | Chief                Executive Officer |

| Date: | November                1, 2007 |
|-------|---------------------------------|
Exhibit 32.1    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 Endeavor Power Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brandon Toth, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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/ Brandon Toth By: Brandon Toth Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  April 6, 2009
**Exhibit99.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

 

**SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

**(18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350)**

 

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of BancTec, Inc, a Delaware corporation(the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2002 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Brian R. Stone, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), that to my knowledge: 

 

 

(1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

 

(2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. 

 

 

 

/ s/    Brian R. Stone

 

Brian R. Stone

SeniorVice President and Chief Financial Officer 

 

September20, 2002 

** **

 

 

 

----
#### In the Matter of Dante W., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Delaware County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Justin W., Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 618]

Spain, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Dela*1401ware County (Becker, J.), entered July 24, 2012, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, to adjudicate respondent’s child to be neglected.

Respondent and Jessica X. (hereinafter the mother) are the parents of a son, Dante W (born in 2008). In connection with several incidents in which respondent consumed alcohol in excess and committed acts of domestic violence against the mother, orders of protection were issued against respondent in favor of the mother and Dante. A relationship nonetheless continued between respondent and the mother until a subsequent incident in July 2011 in which respondent, again after consuming alcohol, punched the back window of the mother’s automobile causing glass to shatter onto Dante. As a result, respondent pleaded guilty to the crimes of aggravated harassment in the second degree and criminal contempt in the second degree, for which he was sentenced to a prison term of 1 to 3 years.

Petitioner then commenced this proceeding against respondent, alleging that Dante was neglected. In the course of this proceeding, respondent — appearing telephonically from his place of incarceration and represented by counsel — engaged in a colloquy with Family Court and his attorney. At the conclusion, the court determined that respondent had consented to a proposed resolution. The court thereafter entered an order of fact-finding and disposition reflecting the parties’ alleged agreement, and respondent now appeals.

An order entered upon consent is not appealable *(see Matter of Gabrielle S. [Reberick T.],*105 AD3d 1098, 1098-1099 [2013]; *Matter of Violette K. [Sheila E.K.],*96 AD3d 1499, 1499 [2012]). Furthermore, because he did not move in Family Court to vacate the order or to withdraw what that court determined to be his consent *(see*Family Ct Act § 1051 [f]), respondent’s present claim that his consent was not knowing, intelligent or voluntary is not properly before us *(see*Family Ct Act § 1061; *Matter of Gabrielle S. [Reberick T.],*105 AD3d at 1099; *Matter of Cora J. [Kenneth J.],*72 AD3d 1170, 1171 [2010]). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.*

Lahtinen, J.P., Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.

*

 Notably, Family Ct Act § 1061 has no time limitation. “Hence a motion may be made at any time, presumably until the order at issue expires, thereby rendering any motion moot” (Merril Sobie, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 29A, Family Ct Act § 1061 at 143).
EXHIBIT 32.1

**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 this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Websafety, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Rowland W. Day II, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby 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; and

2.

The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

By:   */s/ Rowland W. Day II*

Rowland W. Day II

Chief Executive Officer

Dated: April 16, 2012

This certification accompanies this report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purpose of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, another document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to WebSafety, Inc. fka Blindspot Alert, In. and will be retained and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
##### 



EXHIBIT 4.3 March 15, 2005 Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549 Re: Brookfield Homes Corporation Ladies and Gentlemen: In accordance with Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of Regulation S-K, Brookfield Homes Corporation (the
Registrant) has not filed herewith any instrument with respect to long-term debt not being
registered where the total number of securities authorized thereunder does not exceed ten percent
(10%) of the total assets of the Registrant and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. The
Registrant hereby agrees to furnish a copy of any such agreement to the Securities and Exchange
Commission upon request. Sincerely, BROOKFIELD HOMES CORPORATION
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2319 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Related Programs, 

US Institute of Peace for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently 

determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Related Programs, US Institute of Peace for fiscal year 

2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 RELATED PROGRAMS, US INSTITUTE OF 

5 PEACE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise availVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:07 Apr 19, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2319.IH H2319

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2319 IH

1 able for Related Programs, US Institute of Peace for fiscal 

2 year 2024 may not exceed $0. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXELY
ACT OF 2002



I, Sandesh Seth, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the report on Form 10-K of Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Dated: June 16, 2020 | By: | /s/ Sandesh Seth                                                                           
|-------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |     | Sandesh Seth                                                                               
|                     |     | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (Duly Authorized Officer,
Principal Executive Officer)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JOEL BECKFORD, :

Petitioner, :

vs. : CA 06-0667-WS-C

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND :

SECURITY, et al.,

:

Respondents.

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the order entered on this date, it is hereby ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that petitioner’s federal habeas corpus petition, filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, is due to be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as

prematurely filed.

DONE and ORDERED this 8 day of March, 2007. th

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00667-WS-C Document 17 Filed 03/08/07 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Kenneth A. Shewer, Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Managing Owner, Preferred Investment Solutions
Corp. (the Managing Owner), of World Monitor Trust II  Series D (Series D), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | Series Ds Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Annual
Report), 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Series D.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                          
|--------------------------
|/s/ Kenneth A. Shewer     
|Kenneth A. Shewer         
|Co-Chief Executive Officer
|March 31, 2006
#### Boris Khrapunskiy et al., Respondents, v Robert Doar, as Commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, Appellant.

Submitted February 17, 2009;

decided February 19, 2009

Motion by City of New York for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed.
Annual
Statement as to Compliance
 For the
Year Ended December 31, 2007
 
 
 Morgan
Stanley Capital I Inc.
 Series
2007-HQ11
 
 
 Pursuant
to Section 13.9 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement governing the referenced
transaction, I hereby attest that:
 
 i.    A
review of the activities of Capmark Finance Inc. as Master Servicer during the
period, and of its performance under this Pooling and Servicing Agreement, has
been made under my supervision.
 
 
 ii.   To
the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Capmark Finance Inc. as Master
Servicer, has fulfilled in all material respects its obligations under this
Pooling and Servicing Agreement throughout the period.
 
 
 Capmark
Finance Inc.
 
 
 /s/ Mark
E. McCool
 
 By:
              Mark
      E. McCoolTitle:
              Managing
      DirectorDate:
              February
      20, 2008
 
 
 .inv
122   lib A
 
 
 
 
 Capmark
      Finance Inc.116
      Welsh RoadReal
      Estate Finance, Investment, Services
                Horsham,
      Pa 19044
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2233 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 

of Agriculture, Executive Operations, Office of the Chief Economist for 

fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US 

Department of Agriculture, Executive Operations, Office 

of the Chief Economist for fiscal year 2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, EXECU5 TIVE OPERATIONS, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF 

6 ECONOMIST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for US Department of Agriculture, Executive OperVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:54 Apr 19, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2233.IH H2233

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2233 IH

1 ations, Office of the Chief Economist for fiscal year 2024 

2 may not exceed $21,286,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARTIN RAFAEL DIAZ

- AMEZCUA, AKA Martin Diaz, Petitioner,

v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 15

- 71040 Agency No. A088

- 635

- 404

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 14, 2017 * *
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Martin Rafael Diaz

- Amezcua , a native and citizen of Mexico, petition s for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying h is motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

* 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

FEB 23 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 71040

review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v.
Gonzales , 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005)

. We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel, where Diaz

- Amezcua failed to show tha t his prior counsel’s performance was deficient. See Mohammed , 400 at 793 (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must demonstrate that counsel failed to perform with sufficient competence and that he was prejudiced by counsel’s performance); Torres

- Chavez v. Holder , 567 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 2009) (counsel’s tactical decision was not ineffective assistance of counsel). Contrary to Diaz

- Amezcua’s contention, the BIA did not rely on unsupported conjecture or make an adverse credibility determination.
The BIA did not a

buse its discretion in denying Diaz

- Amezcua’s motion to

reopen to apply for new relief as untimely, where it was filed more than two years
after h is final order of removal , see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 ( c )( 2 ) , and Diaz

- Amezcua
fail ed to establish changed country condition in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exc eption to the filing deadline, s ee 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3) (ii).
Because t hese determinations are dispositive , the BIA did not err by not reaching the merits of Diaz

- Amezcua ’ s c laims for adjustment of status and a sylum
and related relief

. S ee Simeonov v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to reach non

- dispositive issues). For the3 15

- 71040

same reason, we do not reach these claims.

P ETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### In the Matter of Julio Giano, Petitioner, v Albert Prack, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

[962 NYS2d 817]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Following petitioner’s Family Reunion Program (hereinafter FRP) visit with his father and sister, it was discovered that a razor brought into the facility by petitioner’s father was missing. A frisk of the garbage bag taken from the FRP unit was then performed, whereupon the broken razor was located, as well as an empty “mini bottle” of whiskey found wrapped in a napkin and concealed inside a box of noodles. Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with violating the rules prohibiting the possession of alcohol and contraband. He was found guilty of those charges at the conclusion of a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. Substantial evidence, consisting of the misbehavior report and related confidential documentation and the hearing testimony, supports the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Wigfall v Department of Corr. Servs.,*100 AD3d 1211, 1212 [2012]; *Matter of McGowan v Fischer,*88 AD3d 1038, 1038 [2011]). Notably, the sergeant in charge of the FRP testified that, following a visit, the garbage from each FRP unit was put into one large trash bag and sealed. It is undisputed that petitioner’s father identified the garbage bag from petitioner’s FRP unit and that is where the contraband, including the missing razor, was discovered. Although petitioner presented exculpatory testimony and argued that the whiskey bottle must have been put in the trash bag by someone else, his contentions presented credibility issues for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see Matter of Valdez v Fischer,*100 AD3d 1213, 1214 [2012]; *Matter of Lopez v Fischer,*69 AD3d 1076, 1076 [2010]). As for petitioner’s claim that he was unjustifiably denied an unnamed “FRP Officer” as a witness, our review confirms that the Hearing Officer properly denied this witness as irrelevant *(see Matter of Austin v Venettozzi,*97 AD3d 867, 868 [2012]).

Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
#### Park *v.*The Hull of The Edgar Baxter. Every *v.*Same.

*(District Court, S. D. New York.*

November 30. 1888.)

Maritime Liens—Shipwrights—Common-Law Lien—Assignment.

A shipwright holding possession of a tug under his lion for repairs assigned his claim to IS., still holding possession as the latter’s agent. The owner filed a libel *in personam,*to recover possession of the tug, without tender of the amount owing for repairs; and E. filed a libel *in, rem*to enforce the claim for repairs. *Held*that, the contract being maritime, the claim and lion were transferable, and could be enforced in this court by the assignee; that the latter was entitled to a decree for the amount owing, and the owner to a decree for possession only on payment of that amount.

In Admiralty.

*Wilcox, Adama & Macldin,*for libelant Park.

*Carpenter & Mosher,*for libelant Every.

*Wing, Shoudy & Putnam,*for claimant in second suit.

Brown, J.

The first-named libel was filed by the owner to recover possession of the tug Edgar Baxter, possession of which was refused on the ground that she was held under a shipwright’s lien for the expense, of certain repairs made under contract, and for an additional sum for extra work.

The second libel was brought to enforce payment of the amount alleged to be due for the contract work and the extra work; the libelant *220having taken an assignment of the repair claim and lien, and the shipwright still retaining possession as agent for Mr. Every, the assignee.

The evidence shows a *bona fide*assignment of the shipwright’s claim and lien, to obtain moneys to pay bills that the shipwright had incurred in making the repairs. The repair bill being a maritime contract,-it is considered, in this court, competent for a shipwright to transfer his common-law lien along with his claim, and to enforce such a lien at the suit of the assignee in admiralty for the sale of the vessel, or of the owner’s interest in it, in order to satisfy the common-law lien. *The B. F. Woolsey;*7 Fed. Rep. 108, 116; *The Two Marys,*10 Fed. Rep. 919, 925; *Nash*v. *Mosher,*19 Wend. 431; 3 Pars. Cont. (6th Ed.) 244; 2 Kent, Comm. 639. Both libels were, therefore, properly filed.

The libelant Park is entitled to possession of the vessel on payment of $1,578, without interest; and Every is entitled to a decree in his suit for the same sum; and the costs of the two suits must be divided between the parties.