alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 99.1**

****

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

The undersigned officer certifies that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-KSB complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained insuch report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

****Date:    November 5, 2002
|     |                                                  | **Quintek Technologies, Inc.**                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| By: |          | *Thomas W.Sims                                                        * |
|     |          | Thomas W. Sims, Chief ExecutiveOfficer and Chief Accounting Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TATEVIK HAYRAPETYAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-73933

Agency No. A096-494-304

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 5, 2013** 

Pasadena, California

Before: PREGERSON, W. FLETCHER, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Tatevik Hayrapetyan appeals from the Board of Immigration

Appeals’ (BIA’s) denial of her motion to reopen her case based on ineffective

assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we affirm. 

FILED

JAN 14 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion,

Cano-Merida v. I.N.S., 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002); its determination of

questions of law, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, de novo,

Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005); and its factual

findings for substantial evidence, id.

While there is no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in deportation

proceedings, the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause ensures that no petitioner’s

proceeding is “so fundamentally unfair that [she is] prevented from reasonably

presenting [her] case.” Gonzales, 400 F. 3d at 793. To prevail on a claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel, the petitioner must show (1) that her counsel

performed deficiently, and (2) that she was prejudiced by that deficient

performance. Id. Hayrapetyan cannot make either showing. Hayrapetyan argues

that her attorney performed deficiently by withdrawing her application for

adjustment of status and requesting voluntary departure as an alternative form of

relief. Under Ninth Circuit case law, however, counsel’s tactical decision, even if

“unwise” in retrospect, does not amount to deficient performance unless petitioner

can show that the decision fell below the level of professional competence. See

Magallanes-Damian v. I.N.S., 783 F.2d 931, 934 (9th Cir. 1986). Given

Hayrapetyan’s inconsistent testimony regarding whether she entered the United

-2-
States without inspection, and the absence of any evidence corroborating her later

claim that she entered with inspection, we cannot construe her counsel’s

recommended course as anything other than a defensible tactical decision.

Even if we were to bypass this first step, Hayrapetyan cannot satisfy the

second. Her representation that she entered the United States without inspection,

made through two different attorneys at two different hearings, forecloses any

claim that she was prejudiced, as her uninspected entry into the United States made

her ineligible for adjustment of status under § 245(i) of the Immigration and

Nationality Act.

AFFIRMED.

-3-
# 2005

# 2006

# 2007

# 2008

# 2010
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 Inhibiton Therapeutics, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended January 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Henry
Fong, President & Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial
Officer, 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
      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, as of, and for the periods presented in the
    Report.





/s/ Henry FongHenry
      FongPrincipal
      Executive Officerand
                Principal
      Financial OfficerMay
      18, 2009




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Inhibiton
Therapeutics, Inc. and will be retained by Inhibiton Therapeutics, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

As independent registered public
accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of the report of Caturano and Company, P.C. (whose name has since been changed to Caturano and Company, Inc.) dated March 17, 2010 relating to the financial statements of ZIOPHARM
Oncology, Inc. for the period from September 9, 2003 (date of inception) through December 31, 2009, included in or made part of this Form 10-K/A, into the Companys previously filed Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos.
333-129884, 333-134280, 333-142701, 333-160496 and 333-185433) and Forms S-3 (File Nos. 333-129680, 333-134279, 333-141014, 333-161453, 333-162160, 333-163517, 333-166444, 333-174292 and 333-177793).



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ Caturano and Company, Inc.      
|                                    
|Boston, Massachusetts
March 18, 2013
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Financial Statements of ThermoEnergy Corporation for the quarter ended March 31,
1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000884504
<NAME> THERMOENERGY CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         112,796
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               112,796
<PP&E>                                          19,809
<DEPRECIATION>                                (14,944)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 299,824
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,515,130
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        51,853
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   299,824
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  494,040
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (32,349)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (521,064)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (521,064)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Lavogia Jackson, Petitioner, v Joseph T. Smith, as Superintendent of Shawangunk Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[852 NYS2d 492]

Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of disobeying a direct order, being out of place and leaving an assigned area without authorization. Upon administrative appeal, the charge of disobeying a direct order was dismissed, but the determination was otherwise affirmed and the penalty imposed was not modified. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

Contrary to petitioner’s contentions, the misbehavior report and the hearing testimony of the correction officer who authored it provide substantial evidence to support the determination finding him guilty of being out of place and leaving an assigned area without authorization *(see Matter of Galdamez v Goord,*43 AD3d 1237, 1238 [2007]; *Matter of Brown v Katz,*26 AD3d 559, 559 [2006]). Petitioner’s contrary testimony created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see Matter of Ohnmacht*
      *934
      *v Goord,*47 AD3d 1030 [2008]), as did his claim that the charges were issued in retaliation for a grievance he had filed (see *Matter of Porter v Goord,*47 AD3d 978, 979 [2008]).

Petitioner’s remaining claims, including his claim that the hearing was not timely completed, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Spain, Carpinello, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
SCWC-14-0000987
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. DAVID T. FLEMING, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-14-0000987; CRIMINAL NO. 06-1-0570(1)) ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Reck tenwald, C.J., Nak ayama, Mc Kenna, Po llack, an d Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant David T. Fleming’s application for writ of certiorari filed on November 6, 2017, is hereby accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no oral argument will be heard in this case. Any party may, within ten days and pursuant to Rule 34(c) of the Hawai # i Rules of Appellate Procedure, move for retention of oral argument.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, December 21, 2017.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-14-0000987 21-DEC-2017 12:07 PM
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE 
 OF REAL
PROPERTY AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS 
 THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF REAL PROPERTY AND ESCROW
INSTRUCTIONS (“First Amendment”) between GREIT-SUTTER SQUARE, LP, a California limited partnership, (“Seller”), G REIT LIQUIDATING TRUST, a Maryland trust (“Seller Guarantor”), and SGR
SUTTER SQUARE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Buyer”) (Seller, Seller Guarantor and Buyer sometimes hereafter referred to individually as “Party” and collectively as “Parties”), is
made and entered into as the latest date set forth below. 
 WHEREAS, the Parties hereto have entered into a certain Agreement
for Purchase and Sale of Real Property and Escrow Instructions, dated October 3, 2012 (“Original Agreement”) and desire to modify and amend the Original Agreement upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth; and

 WHEREAS, this First Amendment is permitted pursuant to Section 17 of the Original Agreement, provided it is agreed and
executed by all Parties. 
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained hereinafter, the
Parties hereto, agree as follows: 
 1. The Closing as set forth in Section 7.2 of the Original Agreement shall be extended
from the original date of November 20, 2012, until and including December 21, 2012. 
 2. The new Closing Date
as set forth in Section 7.2 of the Original Agreement shall now be Friday, December 21, 2012. 
 3. All the
remaining terms and conditions of the Original Agreement are hereby ratified and confirmed. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties
hereto have executed this First Amendment on the day and year set forth below. 
  

							
	 SELLER:
	 		 	 GREIT-SUTTER SQUARE, LP,
 a California limited partnership

				
		 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Todd A. Mikles

		 		 	Name: Todd A. Mikles
		 		 	Title: Manager

 EXECUTED on this the 19 day of November 2012. 








							
	 SELLER GUARANTOR:
	 		 	 G REIT LIQUIDATING TRUST,
 a Maryland trust

				
		 		 	By:  	 	 
		 		 	Name: Gary Wescombe
		 		 	Its: Trustee

 EXECUTED on this the        day of November 2012. 

 

													
	 BUYER:
	 		 	 SGR SUTTER SQUARE, LLC,
 a Delaware limited liability company

				
		 		 	By:	 	Sovereign Realty REIT, LP,
		 		 		 	a Maryland limited partnership,
		 		 		 	its managing member
					
		 		 		 	By:	 	Sovereign Growth REIT, Inc.,
		 		 		 		 	a Maryland corporation,
		 		 		 		 	its general partner
						
		 		 		 		 	By:	 	Sovereign Capital Advisors, LLC,
		 		 		 		 		 	a California limited liability
		 		 		 		 		 	company, its manager
							
		 		 		 		 		 	By:  	 	/s/ Todd Mikles
		 		 		 		 		 		 	Todd Mikles
		 		 		 		 		 		 	Chief Executive Officer

 EXECUTED on this the 19 day of November 2012. 

[Signature Page to First Amendment to Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Real Property and Escrow Instructions]
EXHIBIT 32.2





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


906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the quarterly report of ThermoEnergy Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report"), I, Teodor Klowan, Jr., Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: August 11, 2011





/s/ Teodor Klowan, Jr. CPAName: Teodor Klowan, Jr., CPATitle: Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 23.1




CONSENT  OF  THE  INDEPENDENT  AUDITOR
 
 Hawkins Accounting Inc., previously registered with the PCAOB, changed its name to R.R. Hawkins & Associates International- a Professional Service Corporation.  The name change was effective with the PCAOB on September 15, 2009.
 
 As  the  independent  auditor  for  HPI Partners, LLC we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Form 10K Statement of our report, relating to the  audited  financial  statements and financial statement schedules of HPI Partners, LLC as of December 31, 2008 and the related statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2008.  Our audit report is dated July 12, 2009.
 
 
 
 /s/  R.R. Hawkins & Associates International, PSC
 April 13, 2010
 Los Angeles, California
[Cite as State v. Smith, 2020-Ohio-1446.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO, : MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

 CASE NO. 2020-P-0023

 - vs - : 

MICHAEL A. SMITH, : 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2017 CR 00290. 

Judgment: Dismissed. 

Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, 

OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee). 

Michael A. Smith, pro se, PID# 762-940, Trumbull Correctional Institution, 5701 Burnett 

Road, P.O. Box 901, Leavittsburg, OH 44430 (Defendant-Appellant). 

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J. 

{¶1} On February 25, 2020, appellant, Michael A. Smith, pro se, filed a “Motion 

to file Appeal on Sentence,” construed as a motion for leave to file a delayed appeal, 

pursuant to App.R. 5(A). No notice of appeal was filed in the trial court, and no 

judgment entry for which appellant appeals was provided. 

{¶2} App.R. 5(A) provides: 
2

{¶3} “After the expiration of the thirty day period provided by App.R. 4(A) for the 

filing of a notice of appeal as of right, an appeal may be taken by a defendant with leave 

of the court to which the appeal is taken in the following classes of cases: 

{¶4} “(a) Criminal proceedings; * * * 

{¶5} “(2) A motion for leave to appeal shall be filed with the court of appeals 

and shall set forth the reasons for the failure of the appellant to perfect an appeal as of 

right. Concurrently with the filing of the motion, the movant shall file with the clerk of the 

trial court a notice of appeal in the form prescribed by App.R. 3 and shall file a copy of 

the notice of the appeal in the court of appeals. * * *.” (Emphasis added.) 

{¶6} In the present case, appellant’s motion is defective for the following 

reasons: 1) appellant’s motion does not set forth any reasons for filing an untimely 

appeal; and 2) no notice of appeal was filed in the trial court concurrently with the filing 

of the motion for leave to appeal in this court. Further, no appealed judgment entry was 

provided pursuant to Loc.R. 3(D)(2). 

{¶7} Accordingly, because appellant’s present motion is procedurally defective, 

it is hereby overruled. 

{¶8} We note that appellant is not barred from filing a new motion for leave to 

file a delayed appeal that complies with the App.R. 5(A) and the local rules of this court 

by filing a notice of appeal with the trial with an attached judgment entry on appeal. 

{¶9} This matter is dismissed. 

MATT LYNCH, J., 

MARY JANE TRAPP, J., 

concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                        COLLECTIBLE CONCEPTS GROUP, INC.

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 Collectible  Concepts  Group,  Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended February 29, 2004 as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  Report),  I, Paul
Lipschutz,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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  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 Collectible Concepts Group, Inc. and will be retained by Collectible
Concepts Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or
its staff upon request.

Date:  March 23, 2005


/s/ Paul Lipschutz
--------------------------
Paul Lipschutz
Chief Executive Officer
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GILMAR HUMBERTO TORRES; LUZ

ALEYDA GARCIA,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-73067

Agency Nos. A079-535-914

 A079-535-915

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 17, 2012** 

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Gilmar Humberto Torres and Luz Aleyda Garcia, natives and citizens of

Colombia, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8

FILED

APR 24 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-73067

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion, Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d

942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for

review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to

reopen to apply for asylum and withholding of removal as untimely because the

motion was filed over five years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. §

1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to present material evidence of changed

circumstances in Colombia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time

limitation for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also

Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 991 (9th Cir. 2010).

The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to 

reopen to apply for protection under the Convention Against Torture because it

considered the evidence submitted and acted within its broad discretion in

determining petitioners did not demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief. See

INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104 (1988) (the BIA may deny a motion to reopen for

failure to establish a prima facie case for the underlying relief sought).
3 09-73067

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to exercise its

sua sponte power to reopen proceedings. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633

F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                           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 PRIMEDIA Inc.(the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles G. McCurdy,
Interim Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (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/ Charles G. McCurdy


Charles G. McCurdy
Interim Chief Executive Officer and President
May 15, 2003