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":"License Applicants August 1, 2022","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"HfS8cK4XrL\"><a href=\"\/oti\/license-applicants-august-1-2022\/\">License Applicants August 1, 2022<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/license-applicants-august-1-2022\/embed\/#?secret=HfS8cK4XrL\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“License Applicants August 1, 2022” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"HfS8cK4XrL\" 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"}
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Galal RAMADAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-15819

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Dec. 13, 2013.

Todd B. Grandy, Anita M. Cream, Suzanne C. Nebesky, Robert E. O’Neill, Thomas Nelson Palermo, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Ronald Frank Smith, Law Firm of Ron Smith, PA Largo, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Galal Ramadan, Butner, NC, pro se.

Before TJOFLAT, MARTIN and FAY, Circuit Judges.

*965PER CURIAM:

Ron Smith, appointed counsel for Galal Ramadan, in this direct criminal appeal, 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 to withdraw is GRANTED, and Ramadan’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED. Ramadan’s request for a 60-day extension to file an initial appellate brief is DENIED AS MOOT.

Additionally, there is a clerical error in the judgment — Count 1 of the judgment incorrectly notes that Ramadan was convicted of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and conversion of public property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. However, Ramadan was indicted and convicted of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the district court with instructions to correct the clerical error in Count 1 of the judgment.
87 A.3d 805

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Erik CATHELL, Petitioner.

No. 4 EM 2014.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

March 19, 2014.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 19th day of March, 2014, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for Allowance of Appeal *Nunc Pro Tunc*is DENIED.
{"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":"MAY 2021 ACTIVITY REPORT","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"uycl6a49XQ\"><a href=\"\/may-2021-activity-report\/\">MAY 2021 ACTIVITY REPORT<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/may-2021-activity-report\/embed\/#?secret=uycl6a49XQ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“MAY 2021 ACTIVITY REPORT” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"uycl6a49XQ\" 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"}
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adelson MICHEL, a/k/a Mike, a/k/a Cowboy, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-7763.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 22, 2013.

Decided: Dec. 3, 2013.

Adelson Michel, Appellant Pro Se. Gray-son A. Hoffman, Jeb Thomas Terrien, Assistant United States Attorneys, Harrison-burg, Virginia; Joseph W.H. Mott, Office of the United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished, opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Adelson Michel appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See United States v. Michel,*No. 5:06-cr-00041-GEC-l *278(W.D.Va. Oct. 17, 2013). 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 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

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

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Huntsman Corporation and HuntsmanInternational LLC (the “Companies”) for the period ended September 30, 2006 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, J. Kimo Esplin, Chief Financial Officer of the Companies, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(1)                                 TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                                 Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Companies.
| /s/ J. KIMO ESPLIN        |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| J. Kimo Esplin            |
| *Chief Financial Officer* |
|                      |
| November 14, 2006         |

 

----
#### Hartati SANTOSO; Gatot Ignatius Tirta, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-76588.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 22, 2010.

*171Anthony D. Agpaoa, Law Office of Anthony D. Agpaoa, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Joan E. Smiley, Esq., Richard M. Evans, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Hartati Santoso and Gatot Ignatius Tirta, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their claims 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. *Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not that they would be tortured if removed to Indonesia. *See Wakkary,*558 F.3d at 1067-68.

In analyzing petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims, the agency did not consider their claims as Chinese Christians under the disfavored group analysis. *See Sael v. Ashcroft,*386 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir.2004) (Indonesia’s ethnic Chinese minority is a disfavored group with a commensurately lower level of individualized risk to prove in order to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution). In light of this and our intervening decision in *Tampubolon v. Holder,*610 F.3d 1056, 1062 (9th Cir.2010) (“[A]ny reasonable factfinder would be compelled to conclude on this record that Christian Indonesians are a disfavored group.”), we grant the petition with respect to petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims, and remand to the agency to analyze them under the disfavored group analysis in the first instance. *See INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam); *see also Wakkary,*558 F.3d at 1062-65 (disfavored group analysis applies to withholding of removal). In assessing the claim, the agency should clarify whether there was past persecution.

Each party shall bear their own costs on appeal.

*172PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
{"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":"Statement of Commissioner Carl W. Bentzel\u00a0on the Release of the Maritime Transportation Data Initiative (MTDI) Request for Information (RFI)","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"zs27OKDahW\"><a href=\"\/statement-of-commissioner-bentzel-mtdi-rfi\/\">Statement of Commissioner Carl W. Bentzel\u00a0on the Release of the Maritime Transportation Data Initiative (MTDI) Request for Information (RFI)<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/statement-of-commissioner-bentzel-mtdi-rfi\/embed\/#?secret=zs27OKDahW\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Statement of Commissioner Carl W. Bentzel\u00a0on the Release of the Maritime Transportation Data Initiative (MTDI) Request for Information (RFI)” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"zs27OKDahW\" 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"}
CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL 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 Annual Report of Mexus Gold US, a Nevada corporation, (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2019 (the “Report”), I, Paul D. Thompson, Sr., Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, do hereby 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 Report, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, 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 Registrant.  Dated: July 10, 2019By:/s/ Paul D. Thompson Sr.Paul D. Thompson Sr.
Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 32.4

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 Annual Report of Health Finance Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-K (Form 10-K) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, David P. Jones, 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, that, to my knowledge:

(1)
The Form 10-K 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



By:

/s/    DAVID P.
JONESDavid P. Jones Chief Financial Officer


Date: March 10, 2008
#### THOMAS RHODUS *v.*MANNING. SAME v. SAME. BIRCH F. RHODUS *v.*SAME. SAME *v.*SAME.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

Nos. 739, 740, 741, 742.

Motions to dismiss or affirm submitted May 16, 1910.

Decided May 31, 1910.

Judgments of the state court committing plaintiffs in error for failure to comply with orders of the court directing them to turn over property to receiver of a corporation, affirmed without opinion *598notwithstanding contention that the orders amounted to unreasonable searches, required plaintiffs in error to incriminate themselves and denied them due process of law.

The state court entered orders requiring plaintiffs in error to turn over property to defendant in error received of a corporation and adjudging them in’ and committing them for contempt for failure to comply.

Plaintiffs in error sued out writs of error assigning as error that they were denied rights secured by the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution.

Defendant in error moved to dismiss:

Because the provisions of the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments do not apply to the compulsory production of evidence in a court of a State.

Because the record does not present a case of either a search or seizure, or of the production of evidence; but shows, on the contrary, non-compliance with a decree for relief upon an undisputed title to possession.

Because it is manifest that the writs of error herein were taken for delay only, and that the contention on which the jurisdiction depends is so frivolous as not to require further argument.

*Mr. Benjamin C. Bachrach*and *Mr. Joseph B. David*for plaintiffs in error.

*Mr. Samuel Alschul'er, Mr. Charles R. Holden*and *Mr. Joseph Weissenbach*for defendants in error.

*Per Curiam.*

Judgments affirmed with costs.
**Exhibit      32.1 **

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO **

|                                               |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |                                        |
|----------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|
| Date: *March                  21, 2007*  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
|                                               | By:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 | /s/ *Richard                Rosenblum* |
|                                               | *Richard                Rosenblum*                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|                                               |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
|                                               | *Chief                  Executive Officer**(principal                  executive officer**and                  duly authorized officer)**Chief                  Financial Officer**(principal                  financial officer**And                  duly authorized                  officer) *  |

----