alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of PRIMEDIA Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles J. Stubbs, President and Chief Executive 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 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/S/ CHARLES J. STUBBS                
|Charles J. Stubbs,                   
|President and Chief Executive Officer

May 3,
2010

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the
extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHUNBIAO WU,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 23

- 1201

Agency No.

A200

- 274

- 844

MEMORANDUM *

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

Argued and S ubmitted June 6, 2024
Pasadena

, California

Before: CLIFTON and COLLINS, Circuit Judges, and RODRIGUEZ, District Judge

. **

Petitioner Chunbiao Wu , a citizen of China, petitions for review of the

decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal of the denial

of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal . We have jurisdiction

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable Xavier Rodriguez

, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Texas , sitting by designation. 

# FILED

JUL 30 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 23

- 1201

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We deny the petition for review.

Even accepting Wu’s testimony regarding events he experienced as true

,

Kumar v. Holder , 728 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir. 2013)

, the record does not compel

the conclusion that he met his burden to demonstrate a well

- founded fear of future

persecution

, s ee Duran

- Rodriguez v. Barr , 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019)

.

T he fact that Wu was able to leave China without incident suggests a lack of police

interest , given that all departing passengers are checked for arrest warrants

. T hat

his parents remain in China unharmed despite their practice of Falun Gong

suggests the same

. See Pagayon v. Holder , 675 F.3d 1182, 1190

- 91 (9th Cir. 2011)

(per curiam). The BIA decision emphasized the disparity between Wu’s testimony

about what his wife had told him and the letter from her that Wu produced. It was

not unreasonable for the agency to conclude that the letter’s claims about the

police’s intentions were unper suasive because they went we ll beyond what Wu had

testified to his wife having previously said. Having found the letter unpersuasive,

the agency was entitled to interpret Wu’s testimony as failing to demonstrate that

the police were actively seeking him for “collaborating against the Chinese

government.”

B ecause Wu failed to meet his burden of establishing eligibility for asylum,

he necessarily fails to meet the higher burden of proof required for withholding of

removal. See Ramirez

- Munoz v. Lynch , 816 F.3d 1226, 1230 (9th Cir. 2016).

PETITION DENIED.
Exhibit 4.33

LOAN AGREEMENT

(this"Agreement")

between

Infineon Technologies Holding B.V., Rotterdam
(the"Issuer")

and

Infineon Technologies AG, Munich
("Infineon Technologies AG")

WHEREAS:

Now,
therefore, it is agreed as follows:

§ 1
(Definitions)

In this Agreement terms defined in the Conditions shall have the same meaning herein, unless otherwise required by the context.

§ 2
(The Loan)

€700,000,000
(Euro seven hundred million)
(the"Loan Amount").

---

§ 3
(Security Assignment)

§ 4
(Interest; Repayments; Discharge)

2

---

§ 5
(Taxes)

All
payments on the Loan shall be made without withholding or deduction of any present or future taxes, duties or governmental charges of whatever nature imposed, levied or withheld by
or in the Federal Republic of Germany or The Netherlands or by or on behalf of any political subdivision or authority thereof or therein having power to tax, unless Infineon Technologies AG is
required by law to withhold or deduct such taxes or duties. The parties agree that any withholdings or deductions on principal of the Loan pursuant to sentence (1) shall not reduce the Loan
Amount.

§ 6
(Amendment or Termination of this Agreement)

The
Issuer and Infineon Technologies AG undertake (subject to the following sentences) not to amend or terminate any provisions of this Agreement and to refrain from anything that could
impair the rights of the Noteholders under the security assignment (§ 3) or otherwise. An amendment or termination of this Agreement shall only be effected if the rights of
the Noteholders are not impaired thereby. The Issuer and Infineon Technologies AG hereby agree that in the case of a Substitution, the New Company may, and if legally required to ensure that upon a
valid exercise of the Conversion Rights of the Noteholders fully paid New Shares can be delivered shall, assume by way of a liberating debt assumption(befreiende
Schuldübernahme)within the meaning of §§ 414 et seq. German Civil Code all rights, liabilities and obligations of Infineon
Technologies AG under this Agreement. If the New Company is not domiciled in The Netherlands, an alternative reference to the country of domicile of the New Company shall be made in
§ 5 in addition to the reference to the Federal Republic of Germany and The Netherlands.

§ 7
(Waiver of Rights of Set-Off)

With
respect to all claims of the Issuer under this Agreement, Infineon Technologies AG agrees not to assert any rights of set-off, retention rights, liens or counter-claims.

§ 8
(Miscellaneous)

3

---

Rotterdam,

June 2,
2003

Infineon
Technologies Holding B.V.

---

Munich,

June 2,
2003

Infineon
Technologies AG

---

4

---

QuickLinks
# cpsaat12
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5258 

To provide that the Secretary of Education may give preference, in the 

distribution of certain grants under the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act, to local educational agencies and public or private nonprofit organizations that provide training to regular education personnel 

to meet the needs of children with disabilities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 7, 2004 

Mr. CUMMINGS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To provide that the Secretary of Education may give preference, in the distribution of certain grants under the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, to local educational agencies and public or private nonprofit organizations that provide training to regular education personnel to meet the needs of children with disabilities. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Teacher Training Ex5 pansion Act of 2004’’. 
2 

•HR 5258 IH 

1 SEC. 2. PREFERENCES ALLOWED IN DISTRIBUTION OF CER2 TAIN GRANTS. 

3 Section 673(g)(3) of the Individuals with Disabilities 

4 Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1473(g)(3)) is amended— 

5 (1) at the end of subparagraph (A) by striking 

6 ‘‘and’’; 

7 (2) at the end of subparagraph (B) by striking 

8 the period and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

9 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub10 paragraph: 

11 ‘‘(C) give preference to local educational 

12 agencies and public or private nonprofit organi13 zations that provide training to regular edu14 cation personnel to meet the needs of children 

15 with disabilities in integrated settings and pro16 vide training to regular education personnel to 

17 work in collaboration with special education 

18 personnel in integrated settings.’’. 

Æ
#### N.Y. Lounge Group, LLC, Plaintiff, v John Sullivan et al., Defendants, and Lori A. Sullivan, Esq., Respondent. Kenneth W. Jiang, Esq., Nonparty Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 49]

*516Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered on or about March 7, 2006, which granted the motion of defendant stakeholder Lori A. Sullivan, Esq., to dismiss the complaint to the extent it asserted causes of action against her, and for costs pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (a), awarding her $7,500, unanimously modified, on the facts, to reduce the award to $3,600, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The record supports a finding that appellant engaged in frivolous conduct as defined in 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c). Despite stakeholder Sullivan’s written acknowledgment that she would retain the down payment in the transaction in escrow, after counsel for the buyers objected to its release to the sellers, and despite the court’s memorialization of Sullivan’s representation that she would hold the money in escrow, appellant instituted and continued a lawsuit in which he asserted claims against Sullivan personally, and then amended his complaint to assert further causes of action. Under the circumstances, the lawsuit against Sullivan was utterly without legal or factual basis, and appellant’s conduct was, accordingly, frivolous.

However, inasmuch as Sullivan only sought the award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $3,600, the bona fides of which appellant does not challenge, and the court’s decision does not offer a rationale for the award of $7,500, we reduce the award accordingly. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Nardelli, Williams and Malone, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DATED JANUARY 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                          12,543
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,660
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     22,365
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,822
<PP&E>                                          14,998
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  77,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,483
<BONDS>                                          5,107
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            76
<OTHER-SE>                                      55,406
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    77,100
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,775
<CGS>                                           11,066
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,486
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,240
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,335
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,061
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .38
        

</TABLE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT JAMES D. SHIMKO, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-734 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed October 17, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Lee County; Ramiro Manalich, Judge. James D. Shimko, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See § 775.082(9)(b), Fla. Stat. (2006); McDonald v. State, 957 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 2007); Stovall v. Cooper, 860 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (en banc); Miller v. State, 828 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Miller v. State, 882 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

LaROSE, C.J., and MORRIS and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
**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**
 
 I,
        March
        Clancy, the Chief Executive and Financial Officer of Hybrid Fuel Systems,
        Inc.
        (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
        of
        2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:
 
 (1)
        the
        Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended December
        31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13
        (a)
        or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
        and
 
 (2)
        the
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        Hybrid Fuel Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Hybrid Fuel Systems, Inc.
        and
        furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
        request.
  Dated: August 10, 2005/s/
Mark
                        ClancyName: Mark ClancyTitle:
                          Chief Executive and Financial Officer
EX-10.27



 Exhibit 10.27 
 Apache Corporation Non-Qualified Restorative Retirement Savings Plan 
 Apache Corporation
(“Apache”) sponsors the Apache Corporation Non-Qualified Restorative Retirement Savings Plan (the “Plan”). In section 8.02(a) of the Plan, Apache reserved the right to amend the Plan from time to time. Apache hereby exercises
that right, as follows, effective as of January 1, 2013, by revising section 2.01 to read as follows: 
 The Committee shall
from time to time in its sole discretion select those Employees who are eligible to participate in the Plan from those Employees who are among a select group of management or highly compensated employees. Furthermore, (a) an Employee is
eligible to make Participant Deferrals to this Plan from his Compensation only if the Employee is not eligible to make similar deferrals to the Non-Qualified Retirement\Savings Plan from the same Compensation, and (b) an Employee is eligible to
receive an allocation of Company Deferrals with respect to his Compensation only if he or she is not eligible to receive similar company deferrals attributable to the same Compensation in the Non-Qualified Retirement\Savings Plan. 

EXECUTED this 8th day of November, 2012. 

 

			
	APACHE CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Margery M.
Harris            

		 	 Margery M. Harris
 Executive
Vice President, Human Resources



  
 Prepared November 7, 2012


  
 Page 1 of 1
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5383 

To clarify that certain coal industry health benefits may not be modified 

or terminated. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 18, 2004 

Mr. RAHALL (for himself, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. BOUCHER, and Mr. STRICKLAND) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To clarify that certain coal industry health benefits may 

not be modified or terminated. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROTECTION OF COAL INDUSTRY HEALTH 

4 BENEFITS. 

5 (a) PROHIBITION ON TERMINATION OR MODIFICA6 TION OF BENEFITS.—Section 9711(g) of the Internal 

7 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to rules applicable to this 

8 part and part II) is amended by adding at the end the 

9 following: 
2 

•HR 5383 IH 

1 ‘‘(3) PROHIBITION ON TERMINATION AND MODI2 FICATION OF BENEFITS.—Except as provided in 

3 subsection (d), the benefits required to be provided 

4 by a last signatory operator under this chapter may 

5 not be terminated or modified by any court in a pro6 ceeding under title 11 of the United States Code or 

7 by agreement at any time when such operator is 

8 participating in such a proceeding.’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

10 this section shall take effect on January 1, 2004. 

Æ
#### Victor Hugo MARTINEZ-JARAMILLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 11-70751.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.*

Filed Dec. 21, 2012.

Victor Hugo Martinez-Jaramillo, pro se.

Craig Alan Newell, Jr., Esquire, Trial, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Victor Hugo Martinez-Jaramillo, a native and citizen of Ecuador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Martinez-Jaramillo fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the BIA’s determination that he is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(c)(6), and for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a)(3). *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues which are not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

We need not consider Martinez-Jaramil-lo’s claim that his convictions for burglary and petty theft are not crimes involving moral turpitude because he failed to raise this issue before this court in his prior petition for review. *See Christian Legal Soc. Chapter of University of California v. Wu,*626 F.3d 483, 488 (9th Cir.2010) (petitioner who fails to raise an issue in previous petition for review is not entitled to “a second bite at the appellate apple”).

Martinez-Jamarillo’s contention that the agency violated due process by failing to consider his proof of rehabilitation is rejected.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that Martinez-Jamarillo did not merit voluntary departure as a matter of discretion. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f) (“No court shall have jurisdiction over an appeal from denial of a request for an order of voluntary departure”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 35881]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17221]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1844-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]


South Dakota; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of South Dakota (FEMA-1844-DR), dated June 16, 2009, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: July 6, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident 
period for this disaster is closed effective July 6, 2009.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-17221 Filed 7-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 28, 2011

p1219 

# Order

December 28, 2011

143582

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143582 COA: 298298 Montcalm CC: 2009-012653-FH ADAM KEITH ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 14, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CODRUT RADU RADULESCU 

Codrut Radu Radulescu Attorney At Law

West Orange, New Jersey 07052

Voice 973 536 2608

Sync Labs LLC and

Codrut Radu Radulescu ,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Fusion-Manufacturing and 

Michael Ferchak,

Defendants

Hon. Madeline Cox Arleo

Civ. Action no. 11-cv-03671 

(WHW)(MCA)

LETTER ABOUT LOST TABLE OF CONTENT

DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY

FILED

In my Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Disqualify Counsel filed yesterday May 2nd, 2012

the Table of Content and part of the Table of Authorities were inadvertently deleted during the 

conversion to the pdf format.

I am sending the two complete pages that should replace page ii.

I apologize for this error.

Codru Radu Radulescu, Esq Date : May 3rd, 2012

/s Codrut Radu Radulescu 

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case 2:11-cv-03671-WHW-MCA Document 32-1 Filed 05/03/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 383