alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32(ii)

Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code

I, Reuben Gamoran, the Chief Financial Officer of Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (the Company), certify that to the best of my knowledge:

|(i)  | the Annual   Report of the Company on Form 10-K dated February 16, 2006 for the fiscal   year ended December 31, 2005, 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 said Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material   respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                   

| | /s/ REUBEN   GAMORAN                        
| | --------------------------------------------
| |                                             
| | Reuben   Gamoran                            
| | Vice   President and Chief Financial Officer

Dated February 16, 2006
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

APR 29, 2011

JOHN LEY

 CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 10-13099 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cr-00440-JSM-TGW-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

DELROY HOLMES,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Middle District of Florida

 ________________________

(April 29, 2011)

Before BARKETT, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Brent Armstrong, appointed counsel for Delroy Holmes, has filed a motion

to withdraw on appeal, supported by a brief prepared pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent

review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit

of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record

reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED,

and Holmes’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.

2
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1091 CAF 14-00713** 
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, VALENTINO, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF JOYCE S., PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KEVIN M. AND ROBERT S., RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

MICHAEL STEINBERG, ROCHESTER, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

KELIANN M. ARGY, ORCHARD PARK, FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT ROBERT S.

JENNIFER M. LORENZ, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, LANCASTER.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Wyoming County (Michael F. Griffith, J.), entered August 15, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5. The order dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to article 5 of the Family Court Act, seeking a determination that respondent Kevin M. is the biological father of the subject child. Petitioner appeals from an order granting the motion of respondent Robert S. to dismiss the petition based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, Family Court properly determined that petitioner was equitably estopped from asserting paternity on behalf of Kevin, based on the best interests of the child ( see generally Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D ., 7 NY3d 320, 326). The court properly conducted a hearing to determine whether the best interests of the child required the application of that doctrine ( see generally Matter of Tracy C.O. v Douglas A.F. , 66 AD3d 1390, 1392), and the evidence from that hearing supports the court’s conclusion that Kevin does not have any meaningful bond with the subject child. The evidence also supports the court’s further conclusion that the child recognized Robert as her father for her entire life until petitioner attempted to remove Robert from the child’s life, that petitioner permitted Robert to be the child’s primary caregiver and to develop a close and loving bond with Robert during that time, and that it would be “detrimental to the child’s interests to disrupt her close relationship” with Robert ( Matter of Fidel A. v Sharon N ., 71 AD3d 437, 437; see Matter of John S. v Imari W. , 121 AD3d 538, 538). Indeed, we note that Kevin admittedly did not visit the subject child for the seven months prior to the hearing on this issue, despite the fact that petitioner had custody of the child for the majority of that**-2- 1091 CAF 14-00713** 

time. Thus, we agree with Robert and the Attorney for the Child that the court properly applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel to bar petitioner from challenging Robert’s paternity.

Entered: October 9, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 06-2023

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

FAIRWAY CAPITAL CORPORATION,

Defendant,

GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS,

Claimant, Appellant,

THE LAW OFFICES OF HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP,

as Counsel to Joseph M. DiOrio, Trustee for Arnold Kilberg;

HENRY D. VARA; FRANCIS DIMENTO; JAMES C. CALLAHAN,

Claimants.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on April 11, 2007, is amended

as follows:

On page 23, line 1, "1918" should be replaced with "1915".
Page 30

Exhibit 31.2  Certification of the Chief Financial Officer

Chief Financial Officer Certification
Pursuant To Section 302 Of 
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002

|I, Robert S. Johnson, certify that:
|-----------------------------------
|                                   
|1.                                 
|                                   
|2.                                 
|                                   
|3.                                 
|                                   
|4.                                 
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|5.                                 
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   



|February 10, 2006 | /s/ Robert S. Johnson  
|----------------- | -----------------------
|                  | Robert S. Johnson      
|                  | Chief Financial Officer
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23

- 50614 Summary Calendar

**____________ John Bernard Williams, III,**  Plaintiff

— Appellant **,**

versus **Hon. Jefferson Moore; Hon. Kristina Escalona; Hon. Ron Rangel; Hon. Melisa Skinner; Chief Justice**  **Rebecca Martinez; B.C.D.A. Joe Gonzales; (Ret.) Hon. Charles J. Ramsay; Edward Frances Shaughnessy**  **, III ,**  Atty **; Ray Fuchs,** F iduciary **; Richard Langlois,** Dec’d Estate **; Leo Caldera,**  CIV. B.C.A

. **; Unknown Defendants,** Et al. **,** Defendants

— Appellees

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:23

- CV

- 770

**______________________________** Before **Smith, Higginson,** and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *****

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 27, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-50614 Document: 53-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/27/2024No. 23

- 50614

2 John Bernard Williams , III, Texas prisoner # 02425623, has filed a pro se appeal from the district court’s denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion challenging the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action and the denial of his motion to proceed in forma pauper is in the district
court. Williams does not meaningfully address the district court’s denial of his motion or its stated reasons for dismissing his complaint. Brinkmann v. Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). He has therefore abandoned any challenge to the district court’s dismissal of his complaint or denial of his Rule 60(b) motion

. I d. Because the appeal lacks arguable merit and is therefore frivolous, it is **DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2; Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219

- 20 (5th Cir. 1983). His motions are **DENIED**

. Case: 23-50614 Document: 53-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/27/2024
#### Elmer Francisco Jerez BOJORQUEZ, a/k/a Jerez Elmer Bohorquez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-1697.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 21, 2012.

Decided: Jan. 7, 2013.

Randall L. Johnson, Johnson & Associates, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, Robert Michael Stalzer, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*210PER CURIAM:

Elmer Francisco Jerez Bojorquez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) order dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying Bojorquez’s application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have thoroughly examined the record and deny the petition for review.

When assessing an alien’s petition for review, we must uphold the Board’s determination that an alien is not eligible for withholding of removal unless the Board’s determination is “ ‘manifestly contrary to law and an abuse of discretion.’ ” *Mirisawo v. Holder,*599 F.3d 391, 396 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2006)). Legal questions determined by the Board are reviewed de novo, *see Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey,*517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir.2008), while the Board’s factual findings “are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006); *Crespirir-Valladares v. Holder,*632 F.3d 117, 124 (4th Cir.2011). Consequently, the Board’s determination regarding eligibility for withholding of removal will be affirmed if it is supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

An alien is eligible for withholding of removal if he shows that, if he was returned to his native country, “it is more likely than not that [his] ‘life or freedom would be threatened because of [his] race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.’ ” *Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d*361, 367 (4th Cir.2004) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (2006)) (internal alteration omitted). Here, our review of the record convinces us that substantial evidence supported the Board’s conclusion that the Guatemala-related incidents marshaled by Bojorquez failed to establish by a preponderance that he would be harmed if returned to El Salvador. We likewise find without merit Bojorquez’s challenge to the denial of his CAT claim.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
Exhibit
      32.1








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


**(Adopted
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Stratus Properties Inc.
      (the “Company”) for the quarter ending September 30, 2005, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), William H.
      Armstrong III, as Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
      of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his
      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.





Dated:
      November 10, 2005








/s/
      William H. Armstrong III


William
      H. Armstrong III


Chairman
      of the Board, President and


Chief
      Executive Officer








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.





This
      certification shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
S. 3395 

One Hundred Fourteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, 

the fourth day of January, two thousand and sixteen 

An Act 

To require limitations on prescribed burns. 

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 ‘‘Prescribed Burn Approval Act 

of 2016’’. 

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act: 

(1) NATIONAL FIRE DANGER RATING SYSTEM.—The term 

‘‘national fire danger rating system’’ means the national system 

used to provide a measure of fire danger according to a range 

of low to moderate to high to very high to extreme. 

(2) PRESCRIBED BURN.—The term ‘‘prescribed burn’’ means 

a planned fire intentionally ignited. 

(3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary 

of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service. 

SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS ON PRESCRIBED BURNS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (b), the 

Secretary shall not authorize a prescribed burn on Forest Service 

land if, for the county or contiguous county in which the land 

is located, the national fire danger rating system indicates an 

extreme fire danger level. 

(b) EXCEPTION.—The Secretary may authorize a prescribed burn 

under a condition described in subsection (a) if the Secretary coordinates with the applicable State government and local fire officials. 

(c) REPORT.—At the end of each fiscal year, the Secretary 

shall submit to Congress a report describing— 

(1) the number and locations of prescribed burns during 

that fiscal year; and 
S. 3395—2 

(2) each prescribed burn during that fiscal year that was 

authorized by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (b). 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       1,780,453
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  156,886
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    353,793
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,310,619
<PP&E>                                         664,065
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,713,822
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          761,721
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       218,860
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,630,095
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,713,822
<SALES>                                        480,065
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               544,526
<CGS>                                          312,197
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,952,485
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,407,959)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,407,959)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,407,959)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1


OFFICERS’ SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS





The undersigned officer of New Concept Energy, Inc. (Formerly CabelTel International Corporation), a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify that (i) the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company, at and for the periods indicated.





Dated: March 31, 2010
By:
/s/   Gene S. BertcherGene S. Bertcher, Principal Executive Officer,President and Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 21 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 21

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Senate 
    should ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of 
                 Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 2003

Ms. Woolsey (for herself, Ms. Slaughter, Mrs. Maloney, Mrs. Capps, Mr. 
Sanders, Mr. Nadler, Ms. Lee, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Towns, Mr. 
  Hinchey, Mr. Farr of California, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Langevin, Mr. 
 Serrano, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Ms. Kaptur, 
Mr. Meehan, Mr. Filner, Mr. Deutsch, Ms. Harman, Mr. Stark, Mrs. Jones 
of Ohio, Mr. Markey, Mr. Cummings, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Hoeffel, Mr. Davis 
of Florida, Mr. Delahunt, Ms. Solis, Mr. Lampson, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Wu, 
   Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Pallone, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Ms. 
Corrine Brown of Florida, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Ms. Norton, Mr. Smith 
of Washington, Ms. Waters, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut, Ms. Pelosi, Ms. 
Eshoo, Ms. Watson, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Pascrell, Ms. Carson of Indiana, 
    Mr. Baca, Mr. Frost, and Mrs. Tauscher) submitted the following 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International 
                               Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Senate 
    should ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of 
                 Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that--
            (1) the full realization of the rights of women is vital to 
        the development and well-being of people of all nations; and
            (2) the Senate should, therefore, give its advice and 
        consent to the ratification of the Convention on the 
        Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
                                 <all>
```
No. 955.

No. 956.

#### Skaug *v.*Nevada; and Skaug *v.*Sheehy, Warden.

May 6, 1946.

*Gregory Hankin*for petitioner.

*Alan Bible,*Attorney General of Nevada, and *Gray Mashburn*for respondents.

Petition for writs of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nevada denied.
IV 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 279

Congratulating the San Antonio Spurs for winning the 2003 NBA 

Championship. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 16, 2003

Mr. SMITH of Texas (for himself, Mr. BONILLA, Mr. RODRIGUEZ, and Mr. 

GONZALEZ) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Government Reform 

RESOLUTION

Congratulating the San Antonio Spurs for winning the 2003 

NBA Championship.

Whereas, on June 15, 2003, the San Antonio Spurs won the 

National Basketball Association’s (NBA) Championship 

best-of-seven series with an 88–77 victory over the New 

Jersey Nets; 

Whereas the Spurs’ victory over the Nets is their second 

NBA championship in five years; 

Whereas this year’s Spurs–Nets Finals is the first time two 

former American Basketball Association teams have 

played for the NBA Championship; 

Whereas seven foot center David Robinson joined the Spurs 

in 1987, and Tim Duncan joined the team in 1997; 
2

•HRES 279 IH 

Whereas last night’s match-up was the final game of David 

Robinson’s 14-year career, and his 13 points, 17 rebounds, and two blocked shots will be remembered as his 

best performance of the season; 

Whereas Tim Duncan’s triple-double, (21 points, 20 rebounds, and ten assists), and his eight blocked shots will 

be remembered as one of the greatest individual efforts 

in Finals’ history; 

Whereas Tim Duncan won the regular season Most Valuable 

Player award for the second consecutive year, and he was 

named the Finals Most Valuable Player following the 

Spurs victory; 

Whereas Spurs head coach Gregg Popovich was awarded the 

Red Auerbach Trophy as the NBA Coach of the Year for 

the 2002–03 season; and 

Whereas Gregg Popovich is the first Spurs coach in franchise 

history to win the Red Auerbach Trophy: Now, therefore, 

be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives con2 gratulates the San Antonio Spurs and Coach of the Year 

3 Gregg Popovich for an unforgettable season of basketball 

4 excellence and for winning the 2003 National Basketball 

5 Association Championship.

Æ
**Exhibit
13.2**
 
 **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 Annual Report of RADVision Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F
for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tsipi Kagan, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (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.
 
 ****Date: April 5,
2005
    By:
    /s/ Tsipi Kagan*Tsipi KaganChief Financial
  Officer
 * The
originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Company’s offices and will be made available for inspection upon
request.