alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2  Certification by the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Entheos Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on the Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Harmel Rayat, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (i) the Report filed by the Company 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 that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company on the dates and for the periods presented therein.  ENTHEOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.Date: May 14, 2008By:/s/ Harmel RayatHarmel Rayat
Chief Financial Officer  This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not 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, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maria LEON, a.k.a. Chata, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-50297.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 14, 2011.

Christopher Brunwin, Ariel Neuman, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.

Shawn R. Perez, Law Offices of Shawn R. Perez, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.

Maria Leon, Dublin, CA, pro se.

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Maria Leon appeals from her 100-month sentence for a racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), and conspiracy to distribute cocaine base in the form of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. *695§§ 846, 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Leon’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the sentence is AFFIRMED.

**

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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

# AGENCY:

Office of Science, Department of Energy.

# ACTION:

Notice of renewal.

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C., App. 2., and in accordance with Title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 102-3.65, and following consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee has been renewed for a two-year period.

The Committee will provide advice to the Office of Science (DOE), on long-range plans, priorities, and strategies for advancing plasma science, fusion science and fusion technology—the knowledge base needed for an economically and environmentally attractive fusion energy source. The Secretary of Energy has determined that the renewal of the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee is essential to the conduct of the Department's business and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the Department of Energy by law. The Committee will continue to operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91), the General Services Administration Final Rule on Federal Advisory Committee Management, and other directives and instruction issued in the implementation of those Acts.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Edmund J. Synakowski at (301) 903-4941.

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 4, 2017.

Shena Kennerly,

Acting Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2017-21919 Filed 10-10-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
Presidential Documents

46649 

Federal Register 

Vol. 82, No. 192 

Thursday, October 5, 2017 

Title 3— 

The President 

Memorandum of September 25, 2017 

Delegation of Authority Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 

Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States of America, I hereby delegate to the Secretary 

of State the functions and authorities vested in the President by section 

10006 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (Public Law 115–31) 

(the ‘‘Act’’). 

The delegation in this memorandum shall apply to any provision of any 

future public law that is the same or substantially the same as section 

10006 of the Act. 

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal 

Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, September 25, 2017 

[FR Doc. 2017–21704 

Filed 10–4–17; 11:15 am] 

Billing code 4710–10–P 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PRES DOCSTrump.EPS</GPH>
<PAGE>
                               TMI HOLDINGS, INC.
                       (FORMERLY THRIFT MANAGEMENT, INC.)

          EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

The following table presents the computation of basic and diluted net income
(loss) per share:




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                             Three Months Ended                       Six Months Ended
                                                       --------------------------------       ---------------------------------
                                                       June 30, 2002      July 1, 2001        June 30, 2002         July 1, 2001
                                                       -------------      -------------       -------------       -------------
<S>                                                    <C>                 <C>                <C>                 <C>
Numerator:
     (Loss) before extraordinary gain                  $   (25,313)        $ (179,331)        $   (38,769)        $  (281,768)
     Extraordinary gain on debenture settlement                  --                 --                  --             408,552
                                                        -----------        -----------         -----------         -----------
     Net (loss) income                                 $   (25,313)        $ (179,331)        $   (38,769)        $   126,784
                                                        ===========        ===========         ===========         ===========
Denominator:
     Denominator for basic income (loss) per
     share--weighted-average shares                       3,255,544          3,047,210           3,166,258           2,961,496

     Effect of dilutive securities:
       Stock options                                             --                 --                  --              23,719
                                                        -----------        -----------         -----------         -----------
     Denominator for diluted income (loss) per share      3,255,544          3,047,210           3,166,258           2,985,215
                                                        ===========        ===========         ===========         ===========

Basic and diluted income (loss) per share:
     (Loss) before extraordinary gain                   $     (0.01)        $    (0.06)        $     (0.01)        $     (0.10)

     Extraordinary gain on debenture settlement                  --                 --                  --                0.14
                                                        -----------        -----------         -----------         -----------
     Net income (loss)                                  $     (0.01)        $    (0.06)        $     (0.01)         $     0.04
                                                        ===========        ===========         ===========         ===========

</TABLE>
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2689 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating the National D-Day Memorial in Bedford, Virginia, 

as a unit of the National Park System. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 3, 2009 

Mr. PERRIELLO (for himself, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Mr. NYE, Mr. MORAN

of Virginia, and Mr. BOUCHER) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating the National DDay Memorial in Bedford, Virginia, as a unit of the 

National Park System. 

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

3 SECTION 1. NATIONAL D-DAY MEMORIAL STUDY. 

4 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act: 

5 (1) AREA.—The term ‘‘Area’’ means in the Na6 tional D-Day Memorial in Bedford, Virginia. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2689 IH

1 (2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

2 the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Di3 rector of the National Park Service. 

4 (b) STUDY.— 

5 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct 

6 a study of the Area to evaluate the national signifi7 cance of the Area and suitability and feasibility of 

8 designating the Area as a unit of the National Park 

9 System. 

10 (2) CRITERIA.—In conducting the study re11 quired by paragraph (1), the Secretary shall use the 

12 criteria for the study of areas for potential inclusion 

13 in the National Park System in section 8(c) of Pub14 lic Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 1a–5(c)). 

15 (3) CONTENTS.—The study required by para16 graph (1) shall— 

17 (A) determine the suitability and feasibility 

18 of designating the Area as a unit of the Na19 tional Park System; 

20 (B) include cost estimates for any nec21 essary acquisition, development, operation, and 

22 maintenance of the Area; and 

23 (C) identify alternatives for the manage24 ment, administration, and protection of the 

25 Area. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2689 IH

1 (c) REPORT.—Section 8(c) of Public Law 91–383 (16 

2 U.S.C. 1a–5(c)) shall apply to the conduct of the study 

3 required by this section, except that the study shall be sub4 mitted to the Committee on Natural Resources of the 

5 House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy 

6 and Natural Resources of the Senate not later than 3 

7 years after the date on which funds are first made avail8 able for the study. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
#### Rafi OUDABACHIAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-72248.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 14, 2011.

Bob Platt, Esquire, Law Office of Bob Platt, Granada Hills, CA, for Petitioner.

Channah Farber, Office of Immigration Litigation, Michael Christopher Heyse, Trial, John Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Rafi Oudabachian, a native and citizen of Syria, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, *Nagoulko v. INS,*333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003),and deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal because Oudabachian’s fear of civil unrest and violence in the Middle East generally does not establish it is more likely than not that he will be persecuted on the basis of his religion. *See id.*at 1018 (fear of future harm is too speculative); *see also Hakeem, v. INS,*273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir.2001) (“An applicant’s claim of persecution upon return is weakened, even undercut, when similarly-situated family members continue to live in the country without incident....”). Accordingly, his withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Oudabachian did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of the Syrian government. *See Villegas v. Mukasey,*523 F.3d 984, 988-89 (9th Cir.2008). Accordingly, his CAT claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 32.3



Liquid Audio, Inc.

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Liquid Audio, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Melvyn Brunt, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. |  | The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: August 14, 2003



/s/ Melvyn BruntMelvyn BruntChief Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 5, 2017

s1212 

# Order

Clerk January 5, 2017

154080

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 154080

COA: 324787

Chippewa CC: 13

- 001286

- FH

DALE ALLEN BETLEM,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 17, 2016

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENI ED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 21
<TABLE>
<S>                                                        <C>
Subsidiary                                                 State of
                                                           Incorporation
                                                           or Formation

First Washington Realty Limited Partnership                Maryland
First Washington Management, Inc.                          District of Columbia
First Capital Realty, Inc.                                 District of Columbia
JFD, Inc.                                                  Maryland
Bryans QRS, Inc.                                           Maryland
Valley Centre, Inc.                                        Maryland
Southside Marketplace Limited Partnership                  Maryland
Clopper's Mill Village Center, L.L.C.                      Maryland
Allenbeth Associates Limited Partnership                   Maryland
Branchwood, Inc.                                           Maryland
Branchwood Apartments Limited Partnership                  Maryland
Woodholme Properties Limited Partnership                   Maryland
SP Associates Limited Partnership                          Maryland
JFD Limited Partnership                                    Maryland
FW-Bryans Road Limited Partnership                         Maryland
Greenspring Associates Limited Partnership                 Maryland
Northway Limited Partnership                               Maryland
City Line Shopping Center Associates                       Maryland
</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 22, 2020

t1214

Order 

Clerk

December 22, 2020

161194

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 161194

COA: 347732 

Wayne CC: 17-009007-FH

DEMARCO ROOSEVELT BRADBURY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 12, 2020 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EX-10.39



 Exhibit 10.39 

 
 



 

  
 1 








 



 

  
 2 








 



 

  
 3 








 



 

  
 4 








 



 

  
 5 








 



 

  
 6
**Exhibit32**

 

1.               The undersigned arethe Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of AmeriVestProperties Inc.  This Certification ismade pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 (§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002).  This Certification accompanies theForm 10-KSB of AmeriVest Properties Inc. for the year ended December 31,2003.

 

2.               We certify thatsuch Form 10-KSB fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information containedin such Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of AmeriVest Properties Inc.

 
| March 18, 2004 |   |                   |
|----------------|--------|------------------------|
|           | By:    | /s/ William T.  Atkins |   |
|           |   |                   | William T. Atkins |
|           |   |                   | Chief Executive Officer |
|           |   |                   |
|           | By:    | /s/ Kathryn L.  Hale   |   |
|           |   |                   | Kathryn L. Hale |
|           |   |                   | Chief Financial Officer |
|                |        |                        |  |  |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sabri BENKAHLA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-7534.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 14, 2011.

Decided: March 31, 2011.

Sabri Benkahla, Appellant Pro Se. Gordon D. Kromberg, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sabri Benkahla seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. RApp. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T] he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order of dismissal was entered on the docket on July 8, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed, at the earli*277est, on October 27, 2010.* Because Benkahla failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*

*

*See Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Kaiser Ervin, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Heidi C. Cesare, J. at plea; Lyle E. Frank, J. at sentencing), rendered September 19, 2016, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of driving while intoxicated per se, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Heidi C. Cesare, J. at plea; Lyle E. Frank, J. at sentencing), rendered September 19, 2016, affirmed.</p><p>The accusatory instrument charging driving while intoxicated per se (<i>see</i> Vehicle and Traffic Law ยง 1192[2]), was not jurisdictionally defective. Allegations that "the engine was running and the defendant was behind the wheel" satisfied the operation element of the offense (<i>see People v Alamo</i>, 34 NY2d 453, 458-459 [1974]; <i>People v Almanzar</i>, 113 AD3d 527 [2014], <i>lv denied </i>23 NY3d 1059 [2014]). </p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: September 10, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>