alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"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":"Revocations and Surrenders – December 4, 2015","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"7UaOybcthy\"><a href=\"\/oti\/revocations-and-surrenders-december-4-2015\/\">Revocations and Surrenders – December 4, 2015<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/revocations-and-surrenders-december-4-2015\/embed\/#?secret=7UaOybcthy\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Revocations and Surrenders – December 4, 2015” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"7UaOybcthy\" 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"}
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

§

§

EX PARTE No. 08

- 13

- 00194

- CR

§

Appeal from the

RODNEY RAMIREZ. §

327th District Court

§

of El Paso County, Texas

§

(TC# 59793

- 327

- 3 (900D08595) )

§

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be

dismissed. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction . We further order this

decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

 

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mexus Gold US, a Nevada Corporation, (the “Company”) on Form 10-k for the year ended March 31, 2020, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 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. 

 

*/s/**Paul D. Thompson*

Paul D. Thompson

Chief Executive Officer

Chief Financial Officer

Principal Financial Officer

 

August 14, 2020
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ness Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Issachar Gerlitz, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.





Date: May 5, 2011
By:
/s/ Issachar GerlitzName:
Issachar GerlitzTitle:
Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
EXHIBIT 35.1

[BNY Mellon   Letterhead]

Statement of
Compliance of The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee.

I, Terrence White, Vice President
of The Bank of New York Mellon, a New York corporation (the Trustee), states:

(a)
A review of the Trustees activities for the period from January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021 (the
Reporting Period) and of the Trustees performance under the PPLUS Trust Certificates Series RRD-1 by and
between Merrill Lynch Depositor, Inc. (the Depositor) and the Trustee has been made under my supervision.

(b)
To the best of my knowledge and based on such review, the Trustee has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Trust Agreement
in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period for PPLUS Trust Certificates Series RRD-1.

|                        | The Bank of New York Mellon,  
      as Trustee                    
|----------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |                                                                    
|Date:
February 11, 2022 | /s/ Terrence White
      
      Terrence White
      Vice President
Exhibit 32.2

               CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                             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 Nortia Capital
Partners, Inc. (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending
January 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert Hunziker, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant
to Exchange Act Rule 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002,

       i.  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections
           13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

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


/s/ ROBERT HUNZIKER
----------------------------------------
Robert Hunziker, Chief Financial Officer


Date:	November 18, 2005
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph Domenic FLOWERS, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 13-10414, 13-104201

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Dec. 13, 2013.

Randy Scott Chartash, Lawrence R. Sommerfeld, Sally Yates, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Joseph Domenic Flowers, FMC ButnerInmate Legal Mail, Butner, NC, pro se.

Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

1

. These cases were consolidated on appeal.

PER CURIAM:

Mary Erickson, counsel for Joseph Flowers, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion is GRANTED, and Flowers’ convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.
#### Rafael Antonio SIGUENZA-AREVALO, a.k.a. Rafael Siguenza, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-74559.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 2, 2010.

Jenny Tsai, Esq., Green & Tsai, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, 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 **

Rafael Antonio Siguenza-Arevalo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions *306for 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”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481 & n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and we deny the petition for review.

Even if Siguenza-Arevalo established he suffered persecution on account of a protected ground, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the government successfully rebutted his well-founded fear of future persecution with evidence of changed country conditions. *See Sowe v. Mukasey,*538 F.3d 1281, 1286 (9th Cir.2008). Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.

Because Siguenza-Arevalo failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal. *See Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Siguen-za-Arevalo failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if removed to El Salvador. *See Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2009).

Finally, Siguenza-Arevalo’s claim that the BIA erred because its decision was cursory fails because the BIA cited to *Matter of Burbano,*20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), adopting the IJ’s decision as its own. *See Abebe v. Gonzales,*432 F.3d 1037, 1040 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (stating that a *Burbano*affirmance signifies that the BIA has conducted an independent review of the record and has determined that its conclusions are the same as those articulated by the IJ).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1

Written Statement of the Chief Executive and Acting Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350



Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, I, the undersigned Principal Executive Officer  of Legacy Wine & Spirits International, Ltd. (the "Company"),  hereby certify, based on  my  knowledge,  that  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company  for  the  quarter ended March 31. 2011 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act  of 1934  and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition  and results of operations of the Company.



Date: June 23, 2011

/s/Jaclyn Cruz

Jaclyn Cruz

President and a Director
{"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 – May 19, 2017","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"OomctChlkz\"><a href=\"\/oti\/applicants-may-19-2017\/\">Applicants – May 19, 2017<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/applicants-may-19-2017\/embed\/#?secret=OomctChlkz\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Applicants – May 19, 2017” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"OomctChlkz\" 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"}
#### Bertin DIAZ-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-75069.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 16, 2008.*

Filed May 22, 2008.

Bill Waddell, Esq., Law Offices of Bill Waddell, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.

CAS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Patricia A. Smith, Esq., Patrick J. Glen, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., 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 **

Bertin Diaz-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review from a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order denying his motion to remand proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review a motion to remand for abuse of discretion, *Konstantinova v. INS,*195 F.3d 528, 529 (9th Cir.1999), and we deny the petition.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Diaz-Rodriguez’s motion to remand where he failed to present evidence to support his contentions or to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief following the purported change in case law. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (no motion to reopen shall be granted where the alien has failed to demonstrate “circumstances that have arisen subsequent to the hearing” warranting remand). His contention that the BIA failed to articulate its reasons for denying relief is not supported by the record.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSEPH HOWARD LUDENA

MENDOZA, a.k.a. Jospeh H. Ludena,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-70071

Agency No. A087-193-376

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 21, 2014** 

Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Joseph Howard Ludena Mendoza, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for

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

of an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for adjustment of

status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions

FILED

JAN 23 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
of law, and for substantial evidence the agency’s factual determinations.

Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824, 832 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition

for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determinations that Ludena

Mendoza failed to establish he had been inspected and admitted into the United

States, and that Ludena Mendoza therefore is not eligible for adjustment of status.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (setting forth requirements for adjustment of status); 8

C.F.R. § 1240.8(d) (stating that applicant bears the burden of establishing

eligibility for relief from removal).

Ludena Mendoza’s claim that the agency employed an unclear standard and

failed to develop the record is unsupported by the record.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 13-70071
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.                  

###### Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

# Time & Date:

2 PM, Monday, December 17, 2001.

# Place:

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, 1325 G Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20005.

# Status:

Open/Closed.

# Contact Person for More Information:

Jeffrey T. Bryson, General Counsel/Secretary, 202-220-2372.

# Agenda:

 

I. Call to Order

II. Approval of Minutes: September 21, 2001 Regular Meeting

III. Treasurer's Report

IV. Strategic Plan Adoption

V. Executive Directors Quarterly Management Report

VI. Executive Session (Closed)

(A) Personnel Committee Report—11/14/01

(B) Personnel Committee Report—12/04/01

VII. Adjournment

Jeffrey T. Bryson,

General Counsel/Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-30853 Filed 12-10-01; 3:48 pm]

BILLING CODE 7570-01-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alonzo Martin VUKSINICH-ALMADA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-10287.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 20, 2008.*

Filed May 22, 2008.

Lauren Ann Anaya, USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for PlaintiffAppellee.

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 **

Alonzo Martin Vuksinich-Almada appeals from the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Vuksinich-Almada contends that the district court erred by counting three criminal history points for his prior conviction for solicitation to unlawfully possess a narcotic drug. We conclude that the district court did not err because the record reflects that, after his probation was revoked, Vuksinich-Almada was sentenced to 510 days for the offense. *See*U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1; *see also United States v. Latim*
      *503
      *er,*991 F.2d 1509, 1516 (9th Cir.1993) (explaining that terms of imprisonment following revocation of probation are added to the original sentence for purposes of calculating length of prior sentence).

Vuksinich-Almada contends that the district court erred by adding criminal history points based on facts that were not proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. We conclude that the district court did not err by determining that the record of the prior convictions demonstrated that Vuksinich-Almada was on supervised release at the time of the current offense and that he had been released from prison less than two years prior to the current offense. *See United States v. Grisel,*488 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc).

In the opening brief, Vuksinich-Almada states that the district court erred by denying his motion for downward departure based on cultural assimilation, but fails to raise any arguments pertaining to this contention. This contention is therefore waived. *See Collins v. City of San Diego,*841 F.2d 337, 339 (9th Cir.1988).

Finally, in his pro se supplement to the opening brief, Vuksinich-Almada contends that the district court erred by attributing three criminal history points each for two prior convictions that were not punishable as felonies under the Controlled Substances Act. We reject this contention because the district court is required to determine only the length of the sentence imposed and not the nature of the underlying conviction when calculating the criminal history score. *See United States v. Ellsworth,*456 F.3d 1146, 1152 (2006).

We conclude that the district court did not commit any procedural error and that the sentence is reasonable. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 991-96 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

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