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

**CERTIFICATION OF**

**THETRUSTEE***

**OF THE SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

In connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2022 andfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James R. Wilharm, Director of Trust Real Estate Services and Senior Vice President of PNC Bank, National Association, on behalf of PNC Bank, NationalAssociation, the Trustee of the San Juan Basin Royalty Trust (the “Trust”),* not in its individual capacity but solely as Trustee of the Trust, hereby certify that: 

 
 1.
The Report fully complies in all material respects with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (as explained in Note 1 to the Trust’s financial statements contained in the Report, in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin Topic 12:E, FinancialStatements of Royalty Trusts, the Trust prepares its financial statements in a manner that differs from generally accepted accounting principles; such presentation is customary to other royalty trusts); and 

 
 2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Trust. 

 

PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE OF THE

SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST
By: /s/ James R. WilharmName: James R. WilharmTitle: 
Senior Vice President

Director of Trust RealEstate Services
Date: May 16, 2022
 
*
The Trust has no executive officers. 
**
----

**EXHIBIT      11**

**NANO-PROPRIETARY,      INC. **

**COMPUTATION      OF (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE**

|                                        |   | Three                months ended December 31, |       | Year                ended December 31, |   |
|---------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------|------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                                        |   | 2005                                           |       | 2004                                   |   | 2003 |   | 2005 |   | 2004 |   | 2003 |   |
|                                        |   |                                           |       |                                   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Net                income (loss) applicable |   |                                           |       |                                   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| to                common shareholders       |   | $                                              | (1,213,083 | )                                      | $      | (1,136,322 | ) | $ | (1,534,897 | ) | $ | (4,661,534 | ) | $ | (4,612,026 | ) | $ | (4,214,202 | ) |
|                                        |   |                                           |       |                                   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted                average number      |   |                                           |       |                                   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| of                common shares             |   |                                           | 99,634,507 |                                   |   | 96,018,127 |   |   | 95,424,044 |   |   | 98,957,812 |   |   | 96,609,237 |   |   | 87,366,507 |   |
|                                        |   |                                           |       |                                   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Net                income (loss) per        |   |                                           |       |                                   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| per                share                    |   | $                                              | (0.01      | )                                      | $      | (0.01 | ) | $ | (0.02 | ) | $ | (0.05 | ) | $ | (0.05 | ) | $ | (0.05 | ) |
#### Jaspal SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-72864.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 6, 2006.*

Filed Nov. 14, 2006.

*660Inna Lipkin, Esq., Law Offices of Kuldip Singh Dhariwal, Fremont, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Margaret A. O’Donnell, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: LEAVY, McKEOWN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jaspal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the dismissal by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) of his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Acewicz v. INS,*984 F.2d 1056, 1061 (9th Cir.1993), and we deny the petition.

Assuming *arguendo*that Singh testified credibly, established that he suffered past persecution, and was entitled to a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution, the BIA concluded that the government rebutted this presumption by showing by a preponderance of the evidence that there has been a fundamental change in circumstances in India such that Singh no longer has a well-founded fear of future persecution. *See*8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1). The BIA’s analysis of how changed country conditions affected Singh’s specific situation was sufficiently individualized to provide substantial evidence for its conclusion that Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum. *See Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft,*336 F.3d 995, 998-99 (9th Cir.2003).

It follows that Singh did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir.2000). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Singh failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to India. *See Malhi v. INS,*336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003).

To the extent that Singh is challenging the I J’s adverse credibility determination, that issue is not properly before us as the BIA declined to incorporate the adverse credibility portion of the IJ’s decision as its own. *See Ghaly v. INS,*58 F.3d 1425, 1430 (9th Cir.1995).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Jorge Alberto MANZUR-RAUDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-74775.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 13, 2009.*

Filed April 23, 2009.

Martin Avila Robles, Immigration Practice Group a Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

*505Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jorge Alberto Manzur-Rauda, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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 (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey,*542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Manzur-Rauda failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. *See id.*at 744-47; *Molina-Morales v. INS,*237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir.2001). Substantial evidence also supports the finding that Manzur-Rauda’s return trips to El Salvador undercut his well-founded fear of persecution, *see Loho v. Mukasey,*531 F.3d 1016, 1017-18 (9th Cir.2008). Thus, his asylum claim fails.

Because Manzur-Rauda failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Manzur-Rauda failed to show it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if he returns to El Salvador. *See Singh v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir.2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer Required by Rule 13a-14(b)

and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code



I, J. Reid Porter, the Chief Financial Officer of IMC Global Inc., certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period ended March
31, 2004 of IMC Global Inc. as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of IMC Global Inc.



September 14, 2004



|                  
|------------------
|                  
|/s/ J. Reid Porter
|J. Reid Porter
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 30043 Summary Calendar

CARLTON TREMELL TURNER, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. DAVID THOMAS; LONNIE NAIL, Defendants-Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:13 -CV- 2818

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Carlton Tremell Turner, Louisiana prisoner # 372940, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint following a jury verdict for the defendants. H e also appeals the district c ourt’ s denial of h is postjudgment motions for a new trial pu rsuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 and for reconsideration of the denial of the motion for a new trial

.

* 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 Fif h Circuit 

### FILED September 28, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-30043 Document: 00514174314 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/28/2017No. 16

- 30043

2 This court has a duty to examine the basis of its jurisdiction, sua sponte, if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). A tim ely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement in a civil case. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A) requires that the notice of appeal in a civil action be filed within 30 days of entry of the judgment or order from which the appeal is taken. Turner’s timely Rule 59(a) motion f or a new trial suspended the time for filing a notice of appeal. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(v). Thus, the latest date on which Turner could have filed a timely

no tice of appeal was April 25 , 201 6 , 30 days after the district court ’ s March 24, 2016 , order denying his Rule 59(a) motion. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 4(a)(1), (a)(4)(A). However, Turner’s notice of appeal was not filed until May 18, 2016. Turner’s motion for reconsideration of the denial of his Rule 59(a) motion had no additional tolling effect

. See Charles L.M. v. Northeast Indep. Sch. Dist., 884 F.2d 869, 870 (5th Cir. 1989). Further, his motion for reconsideration, which alleged substantially the same grounds as urged in the first Rule 59(a) motion, was successive

. See id. Such successive motions are

“ condemned by well

- established authority. ” Id. Accordingly, we will not review Turner’s motion for reconsideration. See id. Because Turner’s notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days after the March 24, 201 6 , order denying his motion for a new trial, it is untimely as to both the underlying judgment of dismissal and the denial of his motion for a new trial. Given the absence of a timely notice of appeal in this case, this appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. APPEAL DISMISSED. Case: 16-30043 Document: 00514174314 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/28/2017
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of Plains Exploration & Production Company



|                                    |  |                              |  | 
|----------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------- |  | 
|Name of Subsidiary                  |  | Jurisdiction of Organization |  | 
|Arguello Inc.                       |  | Delaware                     |  | 
|Nuevo Ghana Inc.                    |  | Delaware                     |  | 
|Nuevo International Inc.            |  | Delaware                     |  | 
|Nuevo Offshore Company              |  | Delaware                     |  | 
|Nuevo Resources Inc.                |  | Delaware                     |  | 
|Pacific Interstate Offshore Company |  | California                   |  | 
|Plains Resources International Inc. |  | Delaware                     |  | 
|PXP Gulf Coast Inc.                 |  | Delaware                     |  | 
|Plains Louisiana Inc.               |  | Delaware                     |  | 
|PXP Louisiana L.L.C.                |  | Delaware                     |  | 
|PXP Permian Inc.                    |  | Delaware                     |  | 
|PXP Texas Inc.                      |  | Delaware                     |  | 
|Montebello Land Company LLC         |  | Delaware                     |  | 
|Lompoc Land Company LLC             |  | Delaware                     |  | 
|Arroyo Grande Land Company LLC      |  | Delaware                     |  | 
|Cane River Development Company LLC  |  | Delaware                     |  | 
|PXP Texas Limited Partnership       |  | Texas                        |  | 
|Brown PXP Properties, LLC           |  | Texas                        |  | 
|PXP Deepwater L.L.C.                |  | Delaware                     |  | 
|Plains Acquisition Corporation      |  | Delaware                     |  | 
|Nuevo Energy Company                |  | Delaware                     |  |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
       
<S>                            <C>             <C>             <C>
<ARTICLE>                      5               5              5
<RESTATED>                                                    
<MULTIPLIER>                   1000                           
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS           6-MOS          9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1997     DEC-31-1997    DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                   MAR-31-1997     JUN-30-1997    SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                         11,000          20,600         21,900
<SECURITIES>                   42,100          22,600         52,500
<RECEIVABLES>                  323,000         369,300        272,400
<ALLOWANCES>                   9,100           6,800          8,800
<INVENTORY>                    681,900         534,200        572,300
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               1,117,300       1,014,400      983,400
<PP&E>                         4,277,500       4,337,200      4,404,800
<DEPRECIATION>                 1,897,500       1,928,000      1,959,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 3,675,100       3,611,600      3,646,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          503,500         421,800        409,400
<BONDS>                        760,200         694,800        809,900
<COMMON>                       101,700         101,800        101,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>          0               0              0
<PREFERRED>                    0               0              0
<OTHER-SE>                     1,172,700       1,238,100      1,206,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   3,675,100       3,611,600      3,646,100
<SALES>                        664,800         1,713,000      2,311,700
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               664,800         1,713,000      2,311,700
<CGS>                          493,300         1,282,900      1,732,400
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  556,500         1,415,600      1,930,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               34,000          71,500         100,500
<LOSS-PROVISION>               0               0              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>             12,700          25,200         38,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                61,600          200,700        242,700
<INCOME-TAX>                   22,500          73,300         88,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            39,100          127,400        154,100
<DISCONTINUED>                 0               0              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                0               (3,300)        (3,300)
<CHANGES>                      0               0              0
<NET-INCOME>                   39,100          124,100        150,800
<EPS-PRIMARY><F1>              0.41            1.31           1.60
<EPS-DILUTED><F1>              0.41            1.30           1.59

<FN>
<F1>
Earnings per share has been calculated in accordance with Statement of
Financial Accounting Standard No. 128, "Earnings Per Share," and is, therefore,
stated on a basic and diluted basis.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS TONY JOHNSON NO. 

### 2024 KW 0236 

### MAY 13, 2024 In Re: 

### Tony Johnson, 

### applying for 

### supervisory writs, 

### 21st

Judicial District Court, Parish of Tangipahoa, No. 

### 1701099. BEFORE: 

### GUIDRY, C.J., CHUTZ AND LANIER, JJ.

WRIT DENIED. JMG WRC WIL



### URT OFAPPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT



### PUTY CLERKOFCOURT FOR THE COURT
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 947 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 947

 To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to modify the 
            provisions relating to citations and penalties.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 28, 2005

Mr. Corzine (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Durbin) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
          Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to modify the 
            provisions relating to citations and penalties.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Workplace Wrongful Death 
Accountability Act''.

SEC. 2. OSHA CRIMINAL PENALTIES.

    Section 17 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 
U.S.C. 666) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (e)--
                    (A) by striking ``fine of not more than $10,000'' 
                and inserting ``fine in accordance with section 3571 of 
                title 18, United States Code,'';
                    (B) by striking ``six months'' and inserting ``10 
                years'';
                    (C) by striking ``fine of not more than $20,000'' 
                and inserting ``fine in accordance with section 3571 of 
                title 18, United States Code,'';
                    (D) by striking ``one year'' and inserting ``20 
                years''; and
                    (E) by inserting ``under this subsection or 
                subsection (i)'' after ``first conviction of such 
                person'';
            (2) in subsection (f), by striking ``fine of not more than 
        $1,000 or by imprisonment for not more than six months,'' and 
        inserting ``fine in accordance with section 3571 of title 18, 
        United States Code, or by imprisonment for not more than 2 
        years,''; and
            (3) in subsection (g), by striking ``fine of not more than 
        $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than six months,'' and 
        inserting ``fine in accordance with section 3571 of title 18, 
        United States Code, or by imprisonment for not more than 1 
        year,''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 27, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25249-25250]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12228]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Competitive Revision Applications--
ARRA Funds.
    Date: June 1, 2009.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Room 
3AN12, 45 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Mona R. Trempe, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical 
Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 
3AN12, Bethesda, MD 20892. 301-594-3998. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ea9e988f879a8f8785aa878b8386c4848382c48d859c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2b5f594e465b4e46446b464a424705454243054c445d">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, 
Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and 
Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and 
Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental 
Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, 
Special Minority Initiatives; 93.701, ARRA Related Biomedical 
Research and Research Support Awards, National Institutes of Health, 
HHS)


[[Page 25250]]


    Dated: May 18, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-12228 Filed 5-26-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>