alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Russell A. Olson, Chief Financial Officer of Intcomex, Inc. (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:



| | (1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the Report), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 15, 2009



/s/ Russell A. OlsonRussell A. OlsonChief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

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 U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 17, 2015

No. 04-15-00360-CV

Andy SANCHEZ,

Appellant

v.

JOHN H. MILLER, JR. CO. INC.,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14467B

Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellee’s motion for extension of time to file its brief is granted. We order court 

reporter Paula Beaver to file the reporter’s record by July 31, 2015. We order the brief of 

appellee is due twenty days after the reporter’s record is filed. 

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 17th day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
40 Occupational Outlook Quarterly • Summer 2004

Foresters

Physicists

Explosives workers, ordnance handling experts, and blasters

Anthropologists and archeologists

Compliance officers, except agriculture, construction, health and safety, and transportation

Agricultural inspectors

Natural sciences managers

Zoologists and wildlife biologists

Hydrologists

Economists

Avionics technicians

Bridge and lock tenders

Atmospheric and space scientists

Fabric menders, except garment

Mathematicians

Tax examiners, collectors, and revenue agents

Conservation scientists

Astronomers

Political scientists

Geographers

Forest and conservation technicians

Air traffic controllers

Postal service workers

26

27

27

27

28

28

30

32

32

32

36

39

40

43

46

49

52

55

61

73

77

90

99.9%

Occupation Federal Government's share of jobs (percent)

Occupations with a high concentration of jobs in the Federal 

Government, May 2003

People in most occupations 

can work for the Federal 

Government. But in some occupations, the Federal Government 

offers a particularly large share of 

the employment opportunities. 

The U.S. Government employed 

more than one-fourth of the workers 

in several occupations in May 2003, 

according to data from the Bureau 

of Labor Statistics. As the chart 

shows, nearly all postal service 

workers—including mail carriers, 

sorters, processors, and processing 

machine operators—and nearly all 

air traffic controllers worked for the 

Federal Government. The Government was also a major employer 

of workers in many science, math, 

and social science occupations. And 

many workers, such as tax examiners, collectors, and revenue agents; 

compliance officers; and detectives 

and criminal investigators, were 

likely to hold jobs enforcing Federal 

laws and regulations.

If you are interested in these 

or other occupations, a Federal 

job search could be a good place 

to start. For help, see the how-to 

article elsewhere in this issue of the 

Quarterly.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                Exhibit 10.72

                             LEASE SCHEDULE NO. 1
                           TO MASTER LEASE AGREEMENT



     This Lease Schedule No. 1 is attached to and made a part of the Master
Lease Agreement ("Lease") between C J CLASSICS, INC. DBA C J'S SLOT CONNECTIONS,
a Nevada corporation ("Lessor"), and SANTA FE HOTEL, INC., a Nevada corporation
("Lessee"), dated August 15, 1996.
                  ---------------

     1.   Description of Equipment: The Equipment listed on Attachment "A" to
          this Lease Schedule is added to the Equipment leased under the Lease
          and made subject to the provisions of the Lease.

     2.   Commencement Date: The Commencement Date for the Equipment leased
          under this Schedule will be the date the Equipment is delivered and
          accepted by the Lessee.

     3.   Term:  The Term shall commence on the Commencement Date and shall
          continue for 36 consecutive months.

     4.   The Basic Rent due each month during the Term for the Equipment
          described herein is as follows:

          a.   The first payment under this Lease Schedule in an amount equal to
               $1,434.44 times the number of days ("Interim Rent") from the
               Commencement Date to the first of the month following the
               Commencement Date (the "First Month") shall be due and payable
               upon delivery and acceptance of the Equipment.

          b.   Payment of the Basic Rent in the amount of $43,033.18 shall be
               due on the first day of the First Month and on the first day of
               each month thereafter for 35 consecutive months.

          c.   In addition to the monthly Basic Rent and Interim Rent due as set
               forth above, Lessee shall pay Lessor an amount equal to all taxes
               which may be imposed by any Federal, State or local authority
               from time to time.

     5.   Security Deposit: Lessee shall pay to Lessor, due upon execution of
          this Schedule, a Security Deposit in the amount of $43,033.18. The
          Security Deposit will be held by the Lessor for the Term of the Lease
          and will be returned to Lessee upon satisfactory completion of the
          terms and conditions of the Lease.


[REMAINDER OF PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY]
<PAGE>
 
     6.   All of the provisions of the above-mentioned Lease are incorporated by
          reference herein as if set forth fully herein.

Dated:  August 15, 1996
       -----------------------


LESSEE:                             LESSOR:

SANTA FE HOTEL, INC.,               C J CLASSICS, INC. dba C J'S SLOT
A NEVADA CORPORATION                CONNECTIONS, A NEVADA CORPORATION


BY:  THOMAS K. LAND                 BY:  CARL FREDERICKSEN
    -------------------------           ---------------------------

ITS: SVP AND CFO                    ITS: PRESIDENT
    --------------------------          ---------------------------

                                       2
(as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
  (1)
    
    the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for
the period ended June 30, 2010 (the Report), filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 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.
  /s/ Marc J. EisenbergMarc J. EisenbergPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 32.02
                                                                 -------------

                                 CERTIFICATION

      I, Debi B. Halbert, the Chief Financial Officer of ProFutures, Inc., as
general partner of ProFutures Diversified Fund, L.P., certify that (i) the
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 of ProFutures Diversified Fund,
L.P. 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 the Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ProFutures
Diversified Fund, L.P.



                     PROFUTURES DIVERSIFIED FUND, L.P.

                     By:  ProFutures, Inc., general partner



                     By:  /s/ Debi B. Halbert

                          ---------------------------
                          Debi B. Halbert
                          Chief Financial Officer
                          March 30, 2005
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 Quarterly Report of Opes Exploration Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending April 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ken Ralfs, President, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and a member of the Board of Directors, certify, pursuant to s.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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 represents, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Ken RalfsKen Ralfs 
Chief Executive Officer 
June 12, 2007
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE CARLOS ZAPATA-SUSTAITA,

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 14-70317

Agency No. A200-248-426

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 26, 2016**

Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Jose Carlos Zapata-Sustaita, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal 

from an immigration judge’s order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for 

 

* 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

AUG 3 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 14-70317 

remand, Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny 

the petition for review.

Zapata-Sustaita does not contest the BIA’s conclusion that any asylum claim 

would be time-barred. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 

(9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Zapata-Sustaita 

failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for withholding of removal because he 

did not establish a nexus between the persecution he fears and a statutorily 

protected ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th Cir. 

2009); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’s desire to 

be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by 

gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). 

Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that ZapataSustaita failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for CAT relief because he did 

not establish he would more likely than not face torture at the instigation of, or 

with the acquiescence of, the Mexican government. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 

F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Franco Perrotta, certify that:

1.          
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Legend Marketing Corp.;

2.          
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.          
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.          
I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
small business issuer and have:

(a)          
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)          
Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)          
Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting;

5.          
I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

(a)          
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b)          
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: March 24, 2008

*/s/ Franco Perrotta*
  Franco Perrotta 
  President, Secretary and Treasurer 
  (Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting
  Officer)

---
#### CRAMER v. ALUMINUM COOKING UTENSIL CO.

No. 1313.

District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.

May 24, 1941.

Benj. B. Crone and Harry Lazier, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.

Wm. Booth and Smith, Buchanan & Ingersoll, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant.

SCHOONMAKER, District Judge.

In this action the plaintiff is seeking to recover from the defendant, damages for the death of Sarah Fedner on April 15, 1939, at Atlantic City, New Jersey, from injuries alleged to have been received as t'he result of the use by her of a defective cooking utensil manufactured by the defendant, and purchased by the deceased in her lifetime from an agent of the defendant in Atlantic City, New Jersey.

The defendant, in its third defense, pleads that the cause of action herein is barred by the Act of Assembly of Pennsylvania, of April 26, 1855, P.L. 309, Section 2, 12 P.S. § 1603; and that if any other right of action is asserted by the plaintiff in the complaint, such right of action did not accrue within two years next prior to the commencement of the action; and that the Pennsylvania Act of June 24, 1895, P.L. 236, Section 2, 12 P.S. § 34, is a bar to the granting of any such relief of such a cause of action-.

The defendant urges that in view of the fact that the defendant must plead the bar of the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense under Rule 12(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c the plaintiff ought to reply to that part of the answer. It is our view, however, that no such reply is necessary if the defendant intends to dismiss because the statute of limitations has run. Under Rule 9(f) it is provided: “For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of a pleading, *742averments of time and place are material and shall be considered like all other averments of material matter.”

Here we have a situation where the statement of claim shows when the cause of action arose; and we hold it is not necessary that there should be a reply in order to make a motion to dismiss because the statute of limitations has run.

We agree with Moore’s view in Moore’s Federal Practice, Vol. 1, p. 597, where he says: “Since time is material under subdivision (f) for purposes of testing the sufficiency of a pleading, a motion to dismiss because the statute of limitations has run may be utilized, without supporting affidavits, whenever the time alleged in the statement of claim shows that the cause of action, whether ex contractu or ex delicto, has not been brought within the statutory period.”

If the plaintiff had desired to plead any facts which would take the case out of the statute of limitations, it should have been set forth in the complaint; and we do not think a reply necessary.

The defendant’s motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to reply will be denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   AUG-31-1997
<CASH>                                              94,078
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       45,499
<ALLOWANCES>                                        27,452
<INVENTORY>                                          4,527
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   135,426
<PP&E>                                              34,406
<DEPRECIATION>                                      15,742
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     186,603
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               36,491
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       186,603
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   190,787
<CGS>                                               70,483
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      145,867
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (20,610)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        (7,128)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (13,482)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.65)
        


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 04-0798 (PLF)

)

ALL ASSETS HELD AT BANK JULIUS, )

Baer & Company, Ltd., Guernsey )

Branch, account number 121128, in the )

Name of Pavlo Lazarenko et al., )

)

Defendants In Rem. )

____________________________________) 

ORDER

For the reasons set forth in the Opinion issued this same day, it is hereby

ORDERED that Claimant Pavel Lazarenko’s Motion for Reconsideration Seeking 

Authorization to Plead an Excessive Fines Affirmative Defense [Dkt. 860] is GRANTED; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that on or before August 18, 2017, Claimant Pavel 

Lazarenko shall file on the public docket an amended Answer consistent with this Opinion that is 

identical to his current amended Answer (Feb. 3, 2017) [Dkt. 882] but adds an Eighth 

Amendment excessive fines affirmative defense containing the facts substantiating that defense; 

it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion of Claimants Alexander, Ekaterina, and 

Lecia Lazarenko for Leave to File an Answer to the Amended Complaint [Dkt. 877] is 

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that on or before August 18, 2017, Claimants Alexander, 

Ekaterina, and Lecia Lazarenko shall file on the public docket a new Answer consistent with this 

Opinion that is identical to their current proposed Answer (Feb. 3, 2017) [Dkt. 877-2], but omits 

their Eighth Amendment excessive fines and failure to state a claim affirmative defenses.

SO ORDERED.

/s/

 PAUL L. FRIEDMAN

 United States District Judge

DATE: August 3, 2017
Exhibit 32.2

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer of Stem Cell Therapy International, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended June 30, 2009, (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |                                                                                       |  |                
|---------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------
|Signature              |  | Title                                                                                 |  | Date           
|                       |  |                                                                                      
|/s/ Andrew J. Norstrud |  | Chief Financial Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer |  | August 13, 2009
|Andrew J. Norstrud     |  |                                                                                       |  |
# table13_q3.3_naics