alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 BF Acquisition Group III,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending January 31, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, William Colucci, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 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 results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: June 16, 2004

                               /s/ William Colucci
                               ------------------------------
                               William Colucci, President
                               BF Acquisition Group III, Inc.
Exhibit 32.1



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 Activeworlds Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Paul Goodman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

1.

The quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: November 16, 2009



|                                                              | 
|------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|/s/ Paul Goodman                                              | 
|Paul Goodman                                                  | 
|Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer           | 
|(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) |
#### Carlos Duane HENDON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WALKER; et al., Respondents-Appellees.

No. 07-16496.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 12, 2008.*

Filed May 15, 2008.

Carlos Duane Hendon, Represa, CA, pro se.

Heather M. Heckler, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, THOMAS and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The district court held that petitioner’s challenge to prison disciplinary actions that occurred between 1997 and 2002 was untimely. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

Petitioner’s first state habeas petition challenging the prison’s action was filed in 2003. Petitioner filed a second state petition raising the same claims in 2006. This federal petition for habeas corpus was filed by petitioner on July 26, 2006.

Petitioner argues that he is entitled to equitable tolling because he had restricted use of the law library and was physically unable to file any habeas petitions. Petitioner’s argument is insufficient to justify a nearly three year delay between the filing of the state habeas petitions. There is no tolling for the period of time where a petitioner unreasonably delays between state court applications. *See Carey v. Saffold,*536 U.S. 214, 225, 122 S.Ct. 2134, 153 L.Ed.2d 260 (2002).

A review of the record and the opening brief indicates that the questions raised in *763this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).

Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court’s judgment.

All pending motions are denied as moot.

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 the Interior

###### Fish and Wildlife Service 

      ( print page 64986)    

## Endangered Species 

                    The public is invited to comment on the following application(s) for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,                     *as amended*                     (16 U.S.C. 1531,                     *et seq.*). Written data, comments, or requests for copies of these complete applications should be submitted to the Director (address below) and must be received within 30 days of the date of this notice.                 

*Applicant:*                     Steven Paul Dupuy, Addis, LA, PRT-050470.                 

                    The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (                    *Damaliscus pygargus dorcas*) culled from a herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.                 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has information collection approval from OMB through March 31, 2004, OMB Control Number 1018-0093. Federal Agencies may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number. 

Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington, Virginia 22203, telephone 703/358-2104 or fax 703/358-2281. 

Dated: November 30, 2001. 

Michael S. Moore, 

Senior Permit Biologist, Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority. 

[FR Doc. 01-30994 Filed 12-14-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Applicants – April 19, 2019","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Qd2KdCXQsS\"><a href=\"\/oti\/applicants-april-19-2019\/\">Applicants – April 19, 2019<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/applicants-april-19-2019\/embed\/#?secret=Qd2KdCXQsS\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Applicants – April 19, 2019” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"Qd2KdCXQsS\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Notice to Passengers:  Voyages from the U.S. to Cuba","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"CZGmIYWeE5\"><a href=\"\/voyages-from-the-us-to-cuba\/\">Notice to Passengers:  Voyages from the U.S. to Cuba<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/voyages-from-the-us-to-cuba\/embed\/#?secret=CZGmIYWeE5\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Notice to Passengers:  Voyages from the U.S. to Cuba” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"CZGmIYWeE5\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
#### Daniel Johnson WILLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWN OF TRENTON, NC, et al., Defendant-Appellee. Daniel Johnson Willis, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Town of Trenton, NC, et al., Defendant-Appellee. Daniel Johnson Willis, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Town of Trenton, NC, et al., Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 10-1740, 10-1741, 10-1742.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 9, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 9, 2010.

Daniel Johnson Willis, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Johnson Willis appeals the district court’s order denying leave to file three new civil actions against the Town of Trenton. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Willis v. Town of Trenton, NC,*Nos. 4:10-mc-00001; 4:10-mc-00004; 4:10-mc-00002 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 28, 2010). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 (Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)  In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended August 31, 2011 of Eco Ventures Group, Inc. (the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) and pursuant to 18. U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Randall Lanham, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, that to my knowledge:  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 Company. /s/ RANDALL LANHAMRandall LanhamChief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)  December 26, 2012  Note:A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In the Matter of: SUN TOOL COMPANY, Debtor. Estate of Sun Tool Company Inc, by and through Joseph M. Hill, Trustee for the Estate of Sun Tool Company, Debtor, Appellant v. Stephen L. Baker; Ross, Banks, May, Cron & Cavin; Estate of Khoi Truong; Hoa Truong, Individually, Appellees.

No. 07-20456.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 9, 2008.

Wayne H. Paris, Wayne H. Paris & Associates, Houston, TX, for Appellant.

*521Edward J. Murphy, Beirne, Maynard *&*Parsons, Gregg Sandler Weinberg, Lyman, Twining, Weinberg & Ferrell P.C., Stephen L. Baker, Oppel, Goldberg & Saenz, John H. Risley, John H. Risley, Attorney, P.C., Houston, TX, for Appellees.

Before KING, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

We have carefully reviewed the briefs and the record, and we have had the benefit of oral argument. We have concluded that the record establishes that attorney Stephen L. Baker made it clear, both before the meeting of June 1, 2003, and during the meeting, that he represented Hoa Truong. Sun Tool Company, Inc. could not have justifiably relied on statements made by Baker during the meeting because the record further establishes that an adversarial relationship existed between Baker and Sun Tool, and that Sun Tool did not believe the alleged representations of Baker and could not justifiably have relied on those statements. Further, lacking any evidence, expert testimony or otherwise, supporting the essential elements on Sun Tool’s breach of fiduciary duty claim, the district court correctly held that Baker did not breach any fiduciary duty to Sun Tool after the June 1, 2003 meeting.

The district court’s Order Adopting Memorandum, Recommendation and Order entered June 8, 2006 is AFFIRMED for essentially the reasons set forth therein; the district court’s Order Adopting

Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum, Recommendation, and Order entered February 26, 2007 is AFFIRMED for essentially the reasons set forth therein; and the district court’s Order of Dismissal entered April 9, 2007 is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED. Costs shall be borne by Appellants.

*

 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.
CERTIFICATIONI, Kokmeng Koh, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-Drequired to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K ofPrincipal Life Income Fundings Trust 2006-8 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and otherinformation required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by thisreport is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required inthis report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the ExchangeAct period reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement(s) in all material respects; and  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be includedin this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A. and Bankers Trust Company, N.A.Date: March 28, 2007   /s/ Kokmeng Koh     Kokmeng Koh  Second Vice President
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 ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David S. Bassin, 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.




INVENTIV HEALTH, INC.Date: August 9, 2010
By:
/s/ David S. BassinName: David S. BassinTitle: 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.
#### Armando Ramirez URIBE; Maria Elena Soto Tirador, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-70358.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 20, 2008.*

Filed May 22, 2008.

Armando Ramirez Uribe, Anaheim, CA, pro se.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Mona Maria Yousif, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Sarah L. Weyler, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: PREGERSON, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Armando Ramirez Uribe and Maria Elena Soto Tirador, married natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s continuous physical presence determination for substantial evidence. *Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir.2006). We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. *Ram v. INS,*243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001) . We grant in part and deny in part the petition for review and remand.

An intervening change in the law requires us to remand on the issue of continuous physical presence. In *Ibarra-Flores,*we held that administrative voluntary departure under threat of deportation breaks the accrual of continuous physical presence only where the alien is informed of the terms of the departure and knowingly and voluntarily accepts them. *See*439 F.3d at 619; *see also Tapia v. Gonzales,*430 F.3d 997, 1004 (9th Cir.2005). There is no indication in the record that petitioners were informed of the terms of their departure or that they accepted them voluntarily and knowingly.

We therefore grant the petition for review in part and remand for further proceedings.

Petitioners’ equal protection challenge to the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”) is foreclosed by our decision in *Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft,*291 F.3d 594, 602-03 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Congress’s decision to afford more favorable treatment to certain aliens ‘stems from a rational diplomatic decision to encourage such aliens to remain in the United States’ ”) (citation omitted). Petitioners’ due process challenge to NACARA also fails. *See Hernandez-Mezquita v.*
      *530
      *Ashcroft,*293 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir. 2002) (rejecting a due process challenge because petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was deprived of a qualifying liberty interest).

Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unsupported by the record.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DENIED in part; REMANDED.

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