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

I, Harley L. Rollins, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of eLandia International Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the annual period
ended December 31, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Elandia, Inc.



|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                        
|------------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 19, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Harley L. Rollins  
|                   |  |  |  |     |  | Harley L. Rollins      
|                   |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                          <C>

<CURRENCY>                    CANADIAN
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>               1.50
<CASH>                        197,914
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 390,994
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   44,212
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              633,120
<PP&E>                        195,509
<DEPRECIATION>                (116,543)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                712,086
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         385,980
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      5,368,986
<OTHER-SE>                    0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  712,086
<SALES>                       453,781
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              453,781
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 1,908,855
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (1,455,074)
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (1,455,074)
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (1,455,074)
<EPS-BASIC>                 (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 (0.15)


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-60755

Summary Calendar

ELEAZAR WALBERTO LOPEZ ALVARENGA,

Petitioner

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A208 681 667

Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eleazar Walberto Lopez Alvarenga, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 

petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) 

dismissing his appeal from an order of removal. Relying primarily on Pereira 

v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), Lopez Alvarenga argues that his Notice to 

Appear (NTA) was not a valid charging document because it failed to state the 

time and date for his removal proceedings. Lopez Alvarenga contends that the 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 15, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-60755 Document: 00515200783 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/15/2019
No. 18-60755

2

immigration court lacked subject matter and personal jurisdiction in the 

absence of a valid NTA.

We recently rejected these same arguments in Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 

F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 2019). Where, as here, the NTA specifies the nature of the 

proceedings, the legal authority for the proceedings, and a warning regarding 

in absentia removal, it is not defective. See Pierre-Paul, 930 F.3d at 689-90. 

Moreover, even if an NTA lacking a time and date for the removal hearing was 

defective under Pereira, the defect is cured by a subsequent notice that includes

the time and date of the hearing, such as Lopez Alvarenga received in the 

instant matter. See id. at 690-91. The BIA did not err in dismissing Lopez 

Alvarenga’s appeal. Pierre-Paul, 930 F.3d at 689; see Yang v. Holder, 664 F.3d 

580, 584 (5th Cir. 2011). The petition for review is DENIED.

 Case: 18-60755 Document: 00515200783 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/15/2019
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                            9094
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            7577
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   750
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     102755
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           12289
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             12437
<LOANS>                                         389223
<ALLOWANCE>                                       6339
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  544162
<DEPOSITS>                                      380717
<SHORT-TERM>                                      8500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               3509
<LONG-TERM>                                      14409
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         88145
<OTHER-SE>                                       48882
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  544162
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  22990
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 5175
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 28165
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               13295
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               14186
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            13979
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      653
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 218
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  15825
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1679)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      (1679)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (865)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.06
<LOANS-NON>                                        241
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  5672
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        4
<RECOVERIES>                                        18
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 6339
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              6339
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
Dismissed and Opinion Filed December 7, 2015 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-15-01223-CV IN THE INTEREST OF C.C. AND J.C., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-09-14586-S 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Lang-Miers, and Schenck Opinion by Justice Bridges The filing fee, docketing statement, and clerk’s record in this case are past due. By postcard dated October 8, 2015, we notified appellant the $205 filing fee was due. We directed appellant to remit the filing fee w ithin ten days. We expressly cau tioned appellant that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the appe al. Also by postcard dated October 8, 2015, we notified appellant the docketing statement had not b een filed in this case. We directed appellant to file the docketing statement within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to do so might result in dismissal of the appeal. By letter dated October 28, 2015, we informed appellant the clerk’s record had not been filed because appe llant had not paid for or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record. We directed appellant to provide verification of payment or arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record or written documentation that appellant had been found to be entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned appellant that failure to–2– do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has not paid the filing fee, filed the docketing stat ement, provided the required documentation, or otherwise corresponded with th e Court regarding the status of the clerk’s record. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 5; 37.3(b); 42.3(b),(c).

151223F.P05 /David L. Bridges/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
IN THE INTEREST OF C.C. AND J.C., CHILDREN
No. 05-15-01223-CV On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-09-14586-S. Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. Justices Lang-Miers and Schenck participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.
We ORDER that appellee Lyric Rodriguez recover he r costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant Candelario Chavez.
Judgment entered December 7, 2015.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 48231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22484]



[[Page 48231]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than November 14, 2017.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (David L. Hubbard, Senior 
Manager) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034. Comments can 
also be sent electronically to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#efac8082828a819b9cc18e9f9f83868c8e9b8680819caf9c9b839cc1899d8dc1809d88"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7f3c1012121a110b0c511e0f0f13161c1e0b1610110c3f0c0b130c51190d1d51100d18">[email protected]</span></a>:
    1. Lincoln County Bancshares, Inc., and NFB Acquisitions, Inc., 
both of Troy, Missouri; to acquire voting shares of New Frontier 
Bancshares, Inc., St. Charles, Missouri, and thereby indirectly acquire 
shares of New Frontier Bank, St. Charles, Missouri.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 12, 
2017.
Ann Misback,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2017-22484 Filed 10-16-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6210-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 10.3


                                 PROMISSORY NOTE

Date: October ___, 2006                          Principal Amount: $9,168,468.71

      FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, GILBERT HEINTZ & RANDOLPH LLP, a
District of Columbia limited liability partnership (the "Debtor"), hereby
promises to pay to the order of CONGOLEUM CORPORATION, a debtor-in-possession in
the case designated as Case No. 03-51524 (jointly administered) pending in the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Noteholder")
the Principal Amount set forth above, payable at such times, and in such
amounts, as are specified in the Note Agreement (as defined below). Capitalized
terms used herein and not defined herein are used herein as defined in the Note
Agreement.

      The Debtor promises to pay interest on the unpaid principal amount of this
Promissory Note from the date hereof until such principal amount is paid in
full, at such interest rates, and payable at such times, as are specified in the
Note Agreement.

      Both principal and interest are payable in U.S. dollars to the Noteholder
to the Payment Account specified in the Note Agreement (as defined below) or
such other address as the Noteholder may from time to time notify the Debtor in
writing, in immediately available funds.

      This Promissory Note is the Note referred to in, and is entitled to the
benefits of, the Note Agreement, dated as of even date herewith (as the same may
be amended, restated, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the
"Note Agreement"), among Debtor, Noteholder and the Bondholders' Committee (as
defined therein).

      The Note Agreement, among other things, contains provisions for
acceleration of the maturity of the unpaid principal amount of this Promissory
Note upon the happening of certain stated events and also for prepayments on
account of the principal hereof prior to the maturity hereof upon the terms and
conditions therein specified.

      This Promissory Note is entitled to the benefits of, and is secured by,
the Security Agreement.

      Demand, diligence, presentment, protest and notice of non-payment and
protest are hereby waived by the Debtor.

      This Promissory Note shall be governed by, and construed and interpreted
in accordance with, the law of the State of New York without giving effect to
applicable principles of conflicts of law to the extent that the application of
the laws of another jurisdiction would be required thereby.



                            [Signature Page Follows]


                                        1
<PAGE>

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Debtor has caused this Promissory Note to be
executed and delivered by its duly authorized officer as of the day and year and
at the place set forth above.

                                    GILBERT HEINTZ & RANDOLPH LLP


                                    By: ________________________
                                        Name:
                                        Title:



                                 Signature Page
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001088399
<NAME>                        EZ TALK, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Currency

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Feb-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Mar-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Nov-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         52,341
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               52,341
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 52,341
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,385
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       205
<OTHER-SE>                                     48,956
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   52,341
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,401
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,401)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,401)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
Sixth Amendment to Employment Agreement


 Exhibit 10.4 
 SIXTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This Sixth Amendment to Employment Agreement is made and entered into as of
January 1, 2007 by and between PriceSmart, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (“Employer”) and William Naylon (“Executive”). 
 Recitals 
  

	A)	On January 16, 2002 an Employment Agreement (“Agreement”) was made and entered into by and between Employer and Executive. 

  

	B)	Said Employment Agreement has been amended on five prior occasions; 

  

	C)	Employer and Executive now desire to further amend the Agreement, as set forth hereinbelow: 

 Agreement 
  

	1.	Section 2.1 of the Agreement which provides: 

 2.1
Salary. For Executive’s services hereunder, Employer shall pay as base salary to Executive the amount of $239,000 during each year of the Employment Term. Said salary shall be payable in equal installments in conformity with
Employer’s normal payroll period. Executive shall receive such salary increases, if any, as Employer, in its sole discretion, shall determine. 
 is hereby amended, effective January 1, 2007, to provide as follows: 
 2.1 Salary. For Executive’s services
hereunder, Employer shall pay as base salary to Executive the amount of $247,000 during each year of the Employment Term. Said salary shall be payable in equal installments in conformity with Employer’s normal payroll period. Executive shall
receive such salary increases, if any, as Employer, in its sole discretion, shall determine. 
  

	2.	Section 3.1 of the Agreement which provides: 

 3.1
Term. The term of Executive’s employment hereunder shall commence on January 16, 2002 and shall continue until January 31, 2007 unless sooner terminated or extended as hereinafter provided. 
 is hereby amended, effective January 1, 2007, to provide as follows: 
 3.1 Term. The term of Executive’s employment hereunder shall commence on January 16, 2002 and shall continue until January 31, 2008 unless sooner terminated or extended as hereinafter provided.

  

	3.	All other terms of the Agreement, as amended, shall remain unaltered and fully effective. 

 Executed in San Diego, California, as of the date first written above. 
  

							
	EXECUTIVE	 		 	EMPLOYER
			
		 		 	PRICESMART, INC.
				
	William Naylon	 		 	By:	 	  

	  
	 		 	Name:	 	Jose Luis Laparte
		 		 	Its:	 	President
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Odegrean D. FONTENOT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-30801

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 19, 2011.

Camille Ann Domingue, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Rebecca Louise Hudsmith, Esq., Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Odegrean D. Fontenot appeals from the sentences imposed following his convictions for possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute and possession of firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking crimes. The sole issue that Fontenot raises on appeal is whether the district court erred by imposing a 60-month sentence on the firearm count to run consecutively to his 140-month sentence on the drug possession count.

F ontenot argues that the five-year minimum sentence required by 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l)(A)(i) should not have been imposed because his sentence on the drug possession count constitutes a greater minimum sentence than is otherwise provided by another provision of law. As he concedes, his argument is foreclosed in this circuit; this issue has since been decided adversely to him by the Supreme Court. *See Abbott v. United States,*— U.S.-, -, 131 S.Ct. 18, 23, 178 L.Ed.2d 348 (2010); *United States v. London,*568 F.3d 553, 564 (5th Cir.2009), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 631, 178 L.Ed.2d 507 (2010).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 14, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-21044

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ISMAEL LUNA JUSTO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CR-579-3

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

Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Counsel appointed to represent Ismael Luna Justo has

requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Justo has not filed a

response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s

brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Counsel’s

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from

further responsibilities, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH

CIR. R. 42.2.