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


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of  Clements  Golden  Phoenix
Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September
30,  2002,  as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph Rizzuti, Chief Executive Officer (or equivalent
thereof) 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, to the best of
my knowledge and belief:

(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/ Joseph Rizzuti
                               ------------------------------------------
                               Joseph Rizzuti
                               Chief Executive Officer (or equivalent thereof)
                               November 14, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 203 (Monday, October 23, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49005-49006]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22900]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XF716


Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery 
Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will 
hold a meeting of its Habitat Protection and Ecosystem-Based Management 
(Habitat) Advisory Panel (AP) in St. Petersburg, FL. The meeting is 
open to the public.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 14, 2017, from 9 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Wednesday, November 15, 2017, from 9 a.m. until 4:30 
p.m., and Thursday, November 16, 2017, from 9 a.m.to 12 noon.

ADDRESSES: 
    Meeting address: The meeting will be held at the Florida Fish and 
Wildlife Research Institute, 100 Eighth Avenue SE., St. Petersburg, FL 
33701; phone: (727) 896-8626.
    Council address: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 
Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Iverson, Public Information 
Officer, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place 
Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366 or 
toll free (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#147f7d793a7d627166677b7a5467757279773a7a7160"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2c47454102455a495e5f43426c5f4d4a414f02424958">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Items to be addressed or sessions to be 
conducted during this meeting include: Draft Fishery Ecosystem Plan 
(FEP) II Implementation Plan; FEP II Dashboard links and tools; the 
SAFMC Ecospecies Species Information System; the Council's Habitat and 
Ecosystem Atlas/

[[Page 49006]]

Dashboard; and South Atlantic Ecosystem Modeling.
    Members of the AP will discuss items and provide recommendations as 
appropriate.

Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the council office 
(see ADDRESSES) 5 days prior to the meeting.

    Note: The times and sequence specified in this agenda are 
subject to change.


    Dated: October 18, 2017.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-22900 Filed 10-20-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


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

San Antonio, Texas

September 24, 2019

No. 04-19-00520-CV

SOUTHLAND LOG HOMES, INC. d/b/a Southland Log Homes and Southland Log Homes, 

LLC d/b/a Southland Log Homes and a/k/a Texas Favorite Log Home, LLC,

Appellants

v.

Betty J. PLANT, Individually and as Trustee of the Betty J. Plant Revocable Trust,

Appellees

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CI05974

Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

By order dated September 10, 2019, appellee was ordered to file a response to the 

appellants’ request for a stay of the trial court’s order in the underlying cause. On September 20, 

2019, the appellee filed a response and a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

In their notice of appeal, the appellants state they seek to appeal the trial court’s order “to 

the extent the Order denied Southland’s motion/application to compel the mandatory arbitration 

of the Plaintiff’s claims against Southland in Richland County, South Carolina.” The appellants 

further assert they seek to appeal “the Court’s ruling that the arbitration of the Plaintiff’s claims 

against Southland must be held in Texas, as opposed to Richland County, South Carolina.”

One of the trial court’s orders in the underlying cause grants in part and denies in part the 

appellants’ motion to stay the underlying cause, staying the underlying cause pending arbitration 

in Texas. The second order entered by the trial court grants plaintiff’s motion to compel 

arbitration and orders arbitration to occur in Texas. As noted in appellee’s response, appellate 

courts do not have jurisdiction to consider an interlocutory appeal of an order granting a motion 

to compel “albeit not in the ‘first-choice’ forum.” Al Rushaid v. Nat’l Oilwell Varco, Inc., 814 

F.3d 300, 304 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing Bushley v. Credit Suisse First Boston, 360 F.3d 1149, 1153 

(9th Cir. 2004), and Augustea Impb Et Salvataggi v. Mitsubishi Corp., 126 F.3d 95, 99 (2d Cir. 

1997)). It is therefore ORDERED that appellants respond to the appellee’s motion to dismiss 

and show cause in writing within fifteen days from the date of this order why this appeal should 
not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. All other appellate deadlines are suspended pending 

this court’s resolution of the jurisdictional issue.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 24th day of September, 2019.

___________________________________

LUZ ESTRADA,

Chief Deputy Clerk
#### Dembo NJIE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-71019.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*778Submitted March 9, 2011.*

Filed March 14, 2011.

Scott Allen Marks, Law Offices of Scott A. Marks, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Kevin James Conway, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: McKEOWN, FISHER and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Substantial evidence supported the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because Njie’s testimony about the purported arrest warrant was internally contradictory and contradicted the copy of the warrant submitted as evidence, and the inconsistencies were not trivial. *See Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir.2010). In the absence of credible testimony or documentary evidence, the BIA’s denial of all relief was supported by substantial evidence because Njie failed to carry his burdens of proof to show a well-founded fear of persecution or likelihood of torture. Consequently, we need not reach Njie’s other arguments.

PETITION DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Jeffrey H. TEITEL, on behalf of himself & all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, *117Dov Frishberg, on behalf of himself, Plaintiff, v. DELOITTE & TOUCHE PENSION PLAN, Deloitte & Touche, USA LLP, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-1594-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 28, 2011.

Eli Gottesdiener, Gottesdiener Law Firm, PLLC, Brooklyn, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant Jeffrey H. Teitel.

Beverly W. Garofalo, Jackson Lewis LLP, Hartford, CT (Ashley B. Abel, Jackson Lewis LLP, Greenville, SC, on the brief), for Defendants-Appellees Deloitte & Touche Pension Plan & Deloitte *&*Touche, USA LLP.

Present: ROBERT D. SACK, PETER W. HALL, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

Plaintiff-Appellant Jeffrey H. Teitel appeals the district court’s rulings of August 26, 2008 and December 1, 2009 respectively dismissing his putative ERISA class-action claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and then denying his motion for reconsideration of that dismissal. As before the district court, Teitel contends that it would have been futile for him to exhaust his administrative remedies with the defendants. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

For the reasons given by the district court, claims such as Teitel’s generally require full exhaustion of administrative remedies before they may be heard by a federal court. *See also Kennedy v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield,*989 F.2d 588, 594 (2d Cir.1993). After reviewing the issues on appeal and the record of proceedings below, it is apparent that Teitel has not made “a clear and positive showing that pursuing available administrative remedies would be futile.” *Davenport v. Harry N. Abrams, Inc.,*249 F.3d 130, 133 (2d Cir.2001) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). Indeed, outside of this lawsuit, Teitel has not even contacted the defendants about his claim. *Cf. id.*(informal correspondence between plaintiff and defendant regarding denial of benefits insufficient to establish futility). For the reasons clearly annunciated by the district court in its two rulings, the defendants’ rejection of similar claims made by two other individuals does not, on the record presented, show that it would have been futile for Teitel to pursue his own claims. Nor does the defendants’ choice to defend this action on its merits in the district court operate *ex post facto*to make exhaustion futile. *Id.*at 134.

We have considered all of Teitel’s remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stacy HUNT, a.k.a. Mario DeSean McCoy, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-30068.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 18, 2011.

Stephan Alexander Collins, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Andrea Steward, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Stacy Hunt, Adelanto, 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 **

Stacy Hunt appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) seeking return of $6200 seized by the Drug Enforcement Administration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

We construe Hunt’s motion as being brought under 18 U.S.C. § 983(e), the exclusive remedy for seeking to set aside a *633declaration of forfeiture under a civil forfeiture statute. The district court did not err when it denied Hunt’s motion as untimely, because Hunt did not file the motion within five years of the date of final publication of notice of seizure. *See*18 U.S.C. § 983(e)(1), (3) (providing that “any person entitled to written notice in any nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding under a civil forfeiture statute who does not receive such notice may file a motion to set aside a declaration of forfeiture,” but “not later than 5 years after the date of final publication of notice of seizure of the property”).

Hunt’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE ANNUAL
REPORT ON FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-K
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1000
       
<S>                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>         12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                               4,909
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                          642
<ALLOWANCES>                             0
<INVENTORY>                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     5,551
<PP&E>                             404,966
<DEPRECIATION>                     (18,392)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     400,295
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               11,786
<BONDS>                            100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                               155
<OTHER-SE>                         272,449
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       400,295
<SALES>                             57,859
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    59,706
<CGS>                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       17,236
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    13,154
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   7,646
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     20,377
<INCOME-TAX>                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 20,377
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                        20,377
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         1.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                         1.51
        

</TABLE>
[No. 41742-1-II.

Division Two.

October 24, 2012.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. John Michael Zorn, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Mason County, No. 10-1-00329-1, Toni A. Sheldon, J., entered February 2, 2011. *Affirmed in part*and *remanded with instructions*by unpublished opinion per

Penoyar, J.,

concurred in by Johanson, A.C.J., and Quinn-Brintnall, J.
---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Northport Investments,
  Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31,
  2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
  (the Report), I, Stephen Dadson, Chief Executive Officer 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/ Stephen Dadson
  Stephen Dadson
  Chief Executive Officer 
  May 12, 2004

---
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 295 

To authorize appropriations for the veterans’ workforce investment programs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 8, 2009 

Mr. BUYER (for himself, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. BUCHANAN, and 

Mr. STEARNS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To authorize appropriations for the veterans’ workforce 

investment programs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘More Training for Vet5 erans Act of 2009’’. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 295 IH

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR VET2 ERANS’ WORKFORCE INVESTMENT PRO3 GRAMS. 

4 Section 168 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 

5 (29 U.S.C. 2913) is amended by adding at the end the 

6 following new subsection: 

7 ‘‘(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

8 is authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year 

9 $20,000,000 for programs authorized under this section.’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 ARTES MEDICAL, INC.
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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.
 By:
    
    /s/ Diane S. GoostreeDiane S. GoostreePresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: March 30, 2007
[No. 66706-8-I.

Division One.

October 15, 2012.]

#### Gerard Plasse, *Appellant,*v. Dung Mao et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 09-2-18053-9, William L. Downing, J., entered January 21, 2011. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per

Appelwick, J.,

concurred in by Leach, C.J., and Becker, J.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, James R. Tolonen, 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 Business Objects S.A. on Form 10-K for the annual period ended
December 31, 2003 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 Annual Report fairly presents in all material respects
the financial condition and results of operations of Business Objects S.A. Date: March 12, 2004
    
    By:
    
    /s/ James R. TolonenJames R. TolonenChief Financial Officer and Senior Group Vice President
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 48541]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22625]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


International Product Change--Global Plus 1E

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add the Global Plus 1E product to the 
Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of notice: October 18, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kyle Coppin, 202-268-2368.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642, on October 13, 
2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of The 
United States Postal Service to add Global Plus 1E to the Competitive 
Products List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. 
MC2018-7 and CP2018-12.

Stanley F. Mires,
Attorney, Federal Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2017-22625 Filed 10-17-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
EXHIBIT 32.1

    CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I, LEE BRUKMAN, Chief Executive Officer of Military Resale Group, Inc. (the
"Registrant"),  do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
my knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
quarterly  period  ended  June 30,  2004 of the  Registrant,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):

       (1)    The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

       (2)    The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Registrant.



                                               By: /s/ Lee Brukman
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Name:  Lee Brukman
                                                 Title: Chief Executive Officer



August 23, 2004

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

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Military Resale Group,  Inc. and will be retained by Military Resale
Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
#### JIMMY GARDNER *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 33019)

Gruendel, Beach and Sheldon, Js.

Submitted on briefs February 3

officially released February 28, 2012

Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed.
10.18 Addendum to Zachariah 4 Letter of Intent


    TotalMed

    Will
      take
      it from here.

    


     

    Addendum
      to Zechariah 4, LLC Letter of Intent

     

    Dated: December
      11, 2006

     

    This
      Addendum will serve as a mutually agreed upon extension of the original Letter
      of Intent dated June 30, 2006 and revised on August 31, 2006.

     

    It
      is the
      intention of both parties to extend the expiration date of the original Letter
      of Intent, described in Section 13 of the original document as October 1, 2006.
      The new expiration date will now be February 1, 2007.

     

    By
      affixing their signatures as of the dates indicated below, both parties agree
      to
      the new expiration date provided in this Addendum.

     

    


     

    TotalMed
      Systems, Inc.        Zachariah
      4, LLC

     

    


     

    Signature
      /s/James A. Sterling          Signatures: /s/
      Mark Jennings /s/Sonya
      Jennings

     

    Name
      James A. Sterling                Names:

     

    Title
      COO                                Titles

     

    Date
      December 11, 2006                Date
      December 15, 2006
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 27, 2017.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 27, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18D0161. SUZETTE BARRETT v. XEROX BUSINESS SERVICES et al. .

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

17CV1750