alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
BIG CAT MINING CORPORATION
                              A Nevada Corporation

                             CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of Big Cat Mining  Corporation  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter  ended January 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission (the "Report"),  we, Michael  Halvorson,
President,  Chief Executive  Officer,  and Phil Mudge,  Chief Financial Officer,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.ss. 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.   The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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




Dated April 9, 2003                      /s/ Michael Halvorson
                                         -------------------------------------
                                         Michael Halvorson,
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer


                                         /s/ Phil Mudge
                                         -------------------------------------
                                         Phil Mudge,
                                         Chief Financial Officer
#### Jose Luis RODRIGUEZ-MERIDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-74579.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 1, 2010.

Kaaren L. Barr, Esquire, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

Sharon Michele Clay, Esquire, Trial, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Oil, Nairi Mary Simonian, Esquire, Michelle Gorden Latour, Esquire, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Esquire, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Luis Rodriguez-Merida, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The IJ denied Rodriguez-Merida’s asylum application as time-barred. Rodriguez-Merida does not challenge this finding in his opening brief.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Rodriguez-Merida did not establish past persecution or a clear probability of future persecution based on the mistreatment he and other family members suffered when Rodriguez-Merida was a child. *See Prasad v. INS,*47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir.1995); *see also Hernandez-Ortiz v. Gonzales,*496 F.3d 1042, 1045-46 (9th Cir.2007). We reject Rodriguez-Merida’s contention that the agency erred in failing to take into consideration Rodriguez-Merida’s age at the time the events occurred because the agency properly considered the harm to Rodriguez-Merida’s family and Rodriguez-Merida’s age at the time. *See Hernandez-Ortiz,*496 F.3d at 1045-46.

We lack jurisdiction to review Rodriguez-Merida’s contentions that he suffered persecution as a member of a family-based social group and that he has a derivative fear of future persecution through his daughter, because he failed to exhaust these issue before the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.*2552004). Accordingly, Rodriguez-Merida’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Finally, Rodriguez-Merida failed to set forth any substantive argument regarding the BIA’s denial of his CAT claim. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3579 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3579

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for an increase in 
 the amount of the reporting fees payable to educational institutions 
    that enroll veterans receiving educational assistance from the 
        Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 16, 2009

  Mr. Filner introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for an increase in 
 the amount of the reporting fees payable to educational institutions 
    that enroll veterans receiving educational assistance from the 
        Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN AMOUNT OF REPORTING FEE PAYABLE TO EDUCATIONAL 
              INSTITUTIONS THAT ENROLL VETERANS RECEIVING EDUCATIONAL 
              ASSISTANCE.

    (a) Increase in Amount of Fee.--Subsection (c) of section 3684 of 
title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``$7'' and inserting ``$50''; and
            (2) by striking ``$11'' and inserting ``$50''.
    (b) Technical Correction.--Subsection (a) of such section is 
amended by striking the second comma after ``34''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) 
shall take effect on the date that is 90 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
10.24





BioPreferredSMwww.biopreferred.gov
              United
      StatesDepartment
      of Agriculture





October
29, 2009





Sam
Jeffries


President/CEO


Organic
Sales and Marketing (OSM), Inc.


114
Broadway


Raynham,
MA 02767





Dear Mr.
Jeffries:





This
letter serves as official notification that OSM, Inc. is a participant in the US
Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) BioPreferredSM
program. BioPreferred is a Federally managed program that aims to increase the
purchase and use of renewable,
sustainable biobased products. Biobased products are defined by USDA as products
that are composed in whole or
in large part of agricultural or forestry materials. Biobased products may
include plant, animal, and marine
materials.





BioPreferred
works with manufacturers such as OSM, distributors, and large-scale buyers (e.g.
the government and commercial markets) to increase awareness, purchase, and use
of biobased products. OSM manufactures natural cleaners, hand sanitizers, and
agricultural products. These products are identified by USDA as “BioPreferred”
or “BioPreferred-designated items.” You may also identify your products this way
and promote them as such.




Your
cleaning products fall within the BioPreferred “glass and surface cleaners”
category; these products contain biobased content equal to or greater than 49%.
Additionally, OSM’s hand sanitizers fall within the “hand cleaners and
sanitizers” category; these products contain biobased content equal to or
greater than 73%.





One major
way USDA shares information about the BioPreferred designated items is is
through a list of the products on our website. Please visit www.biopreferred.gov
and click on the link for the “Catalog” to view the entries for your designated
items. Only biobased products that meet or exceed the minimum content
established by USDA can be called “BioPreferred” and are listed in this
catalog.





Federal
government agencies, military branches, and Federal contractors must give
preferred purchasing preference for BioPreferred biobased products — various
mandates, policies, and Presidential Executive Orders document this. Over the
coming years, we look forward to working with you to translate government
greening policy into practice and to creating lasting environmental change for
generations to come.





Sincerely,Ron
      BuckhaltBioPreferred
      Program Manager202-205-4008ronb.buckhalt@da.usda.gov





342
Reporters Building, 300 7th St. S.W., Washington, DC 20024




USDA
is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3476 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3476

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To reauthorize the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area Citizen 
                          Advisory Commission.

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

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION 
              AREA CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION.

    (a) Reauthorization.--Section 5 of Public Law 100-573 (16 U.S.C. 
460o note) is amended by striking ``20'' and inserting ``30''.
    (b) Effective Date.--This section shall be deemed to have taken 
effect on October 30, 2008.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 13, 2009.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 3476

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To reauthorize the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area Citizen 
                          Advisory Commission.
```
#### David HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF VISTA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-56546.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 1, 2010.

David Harris, Vista, CA, pro se.

*268Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

David Harris, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs during his incarceration at the Vista Detention Facility in 2001 and 2002. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), and we affirm.

Even assuming that Harris’s action is not time-barred, the district court properly dismissed it because his claim — that he should have received more aggressive treatment than what defendants administered — states a difference of medical opinion that does not give rise to an Eighth Amendment violation. *See Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir.2004); *see also Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz.,*609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir.2010) (Eighth Amendment standard for medical needs cases also applies in detention context under the Fourteenth Amendment).

We assume that the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Harris’s claim of medical malpractice under California law, and we therefore construe the dismissal of this claim to have been without prejudice. *See Gini v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t,*40 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir.1994) (“When ... the court dismisses the federal claim leaving only state claims for resolution, the court should decline jurisdiction over the state claims and dismiss them without prejudice.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
**Exhibit
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of inVentiv Health, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John R. Emery, Chief
      Financial 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 and to
      the
      best of my knowledge and belief, that:




(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and




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




Date: August
              9,
              2006
            By:
            /s/ JOHN
              R.
              EMERY**John
              R. Emery******
            **Title Chief
              Financial Officer**









A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      inVentiv Health, Inc. and will be retained by inVentiv Health, Inc. and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANGEL SANCHEZ

- VIGIL, AKA Moises Quintranar,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 72702

Agency No. A073

- 963

- 023

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 1 9 , 2021 * *

Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Angel Sanchez

- Vigil, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for adjustment of status . We

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 125 2. We review de novo q uestion s of law. See

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

JUL 27 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 16

- 72702

Madrigal

- Barcenas v. Lynch , 797 F.3d 643, 643

- 45 (9th Cir. 2015). We deny the

petition for review.

The BIA did not err in concluding that Sanchez

- Vigil ’s conviction under

Cal ifornia Health & Safety Code § 11550 (a) is a controlled substance violation that

renders him ineligible for adjustment of status

. S ee 8 U.S.C.

§§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), 1255(i)(2)(A); Tejeda v. Barr , 960 F.3d 1184, 1186 (9th

Cir. 2020) (holding California Health & Safety Code § 11550(a) is divisible

, and

using a plea agreement and charging document to establish the elements of

conviction ) ; Lopez v. Sessions

, 901 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2018) (Federal First

Offender Act treatment is limited to simple possession of a controlled substance

offenses)

.

In light of this disposition, we decline to reach Sanchez

- Vigil ’s contentions

regarding his visa petition. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir.

2004) (the courts a re not required to decide issues that are unnecessary to the

results).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
**EXHIBIT31.1**

 

**DIGIMARCCORPORATION**

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I,Bruce Davis, certify that:

 

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of Digimarc Corporation;

 

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:

 

a.  Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b.  Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c.  Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a.  Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b.  Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:April 7, 2005

 
| By:    |    /s/ Bruce Davis  | * * |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|----------|
|   | Bruce Davis*Chief Executive Officer*    |

 

----
NOTE                 Exhibit 10.18

$14,500                                                    Date: May 30, 2000


     FOR  VALUE  RECEIVED,   Archer  Systems  Limited,   Inc.,  the  undersigned
("Payor"),  hereby  promises  to pay to the  order of  Zamora  Funding,  Inc.  a
Delaware corporation,  ("Holder"),  the principal amount of $14,500.00,  payable
twenty  four (24) months  after the date first set forth  above.  The  principal
amount hereof from time to time  outstanding  shall bear interest at the rate of
six percent (6%) per annum,  payable on the date set forth  above.  All payments
hereunder  shall be in  lawful  money of the  United  States of  America  at the
address of the Holder  hereof or at such  address as shall be  specified  by the
Holder to Archer Systems Limited, Inc.

     If any default shall be made in the payment of interest or principal,  then
the Holder, by written notice to the Payor, may exercise all of its legal rights
to collect  the  balance due unless  within  five (5)  business  days after such
notice the default  shall be cured by Payor.  Such notice  shall be deemed given
three (3) days after having been  deposited in the United  States Mail  properly
addressed  and  sent by  registered  mail to the  particular  addressee,  return
receipt requested.

     Prepayments may be made in this note  voluntarily at any time and from time
to time, without penalty.



                                                 Archer Systems Limited, Inc.


                                                 BY:/s/Richard J. Margulies
                                                 --------------------------
                                                       Richard Margulies
                                                       President
                                        5