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":"July 2022 Revocations & Surrenders","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"3YiQT9oxbS\"><a href=\"\/oti\/july-2022-revocations-surrenders\/\">July 2022 Revocations & Surrenders<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/july-2022-revocations-surrenders\/embed\/#?secret=3YiQT9oxbS\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“July 2022 Revocations & Surrenders” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"3YiQT9oxbS\" 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 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 filing of the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012 (the “Report”) by New Gold Inc. (the “Company”), I, Robert J. Gallagher, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge that:




1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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: March 27, 2013




“Robert Gallagher”







Robert J. Gallagher


Chief Executive Officer
#### William SEPATIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 09-16537.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 5, 2010.

Filed Nov. 12, 2010.

John H. Scott, Lizabeth N. De Vries, Esquire, Scott Law Firm, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Meredith Blagden Osborn, San Francisco City Attorney’s Office, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

*225Before: ALARCÓN and RYMER, Circuit Judges, and KENNELLY, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly, United States District Judge for the Norther District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

William Sepatis appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the City and County of San Francisco and several police officers on his claim that the officers towed his car in retaliation for his exercise of his First Amendment rights.

We affirm. Sepatis’s evidence of retaliatory motive was very weak at best, and the officers unquestionably had probable cause to tow his car for investigation of a hit- and-run accident involving property damage. Summary judgment is appropriate in a case like this one involving “very strong evidence of probable cause and very weak evidence of a retaliatory motive.” *Dietrich v. John Ascuaga’s Nugget,*548 F.3d 892, 901 (9th Cir.2008). Because no reasonable jury could find in Sepatis’s favor on his claim, we need not reach the question of whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

The district court’s grant of summary judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### In re Concetta JACKSON, Petitioner.

No. 16-1059.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R.App. P. Jan. 22, 2016.

Opinion filed: Jan. 28, 2016.

Concetta Jackson, Brooklyn, NY, pro se.

Before: AMBRO, SHWARTZ and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges.

OPINION *

PER CURIAM.

Concetta Jackson has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to rule on a motion pending in her criminal case. We will deny the petition.

Jackson is serving a federal sentence of 300 months in prison imposed for her conviction, by guilty plea, of using a minor to produce visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct. Jackson’s victims included her four children, and her criminal judgment includes a provision prohibiting her from having any contact with them.

As part of her plea agreement, Jackson waived the right to appeal or collaterally challenge her sentence except in limited circumstances. She nevertheless filed a direct appeal and a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We enforced the waiver in affirming on direct appeal, and the District Court enforced the waiver in denying her § 2255 motion.

Jackson later filed two motions to vacate the “no contact” provision of her judgment. The District Court denied those motions, and we affirmed the District Court’s conclusions “that Jackson waived any challenge to her sentence and that her challenge is meritless.” *United States v. Jackson,*549 Fed.Appx. 117, 118 (3d Cir.2014) (per curiam). Jackson has filed with the District Court another motion seeking to vacate the “no contact” provision, this time seeking to “correct” that purportedly illegal provision of her sentence under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a). The District Court docketed that motion on August 19, 2015, and it remains pending.

Jackson now has filed a petition seeking a writ, of mandamus directing the District Court to rule on that motion. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that we may grant only when, inter alia, the petitioner has a “clear and indisputable” right to relief and we are satisfied that “the writ is *140appropriate under the circumstances.” *In re Pressman-Gutman Co.,*459 F.3d 383, 399 (3d Cir.2006) (quotation marks omitted). Mandamus may be appropriate to compel a District Court to act when a delay in ruling is tantamount to a denial of due process. *See Madden v. Myers,*102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir.1996). The delay in this case has not reached that level, however, and any concerns in that regard are further limited because the District Court already has denied the relief that Jackson requests and we already have affirmed its ruling. Nevertheless, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of Jackson’s new motion, we are confident that the District Court will rule on it in due course. We will deny Jackson’s petition because mandamus is not warranted under these circumstances.

*

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.
{"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":"Commission Votes to Expand Flexibility in NVOCC Service Options","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Tf7zbzGFhC\"><a href=\"\/commission-votes-to-expand-flexibility-in-nvocc-service-options\/\">Commission Votes to Expand Flexibility in NVOCC Service Options<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/commission-votes-to-expand-flexibility-in-nvocc-service-options\/embed\/#?secret=Tf7zbzGFhC\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Commission Votes to Expand Flexibility in NVOCC Service Options” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"Tf7zbzGFhC\" 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"}
**Exhibit 35.1**

** **

**WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK**

** **

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATEANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

 

            I, H. John Berens, an authorized officer of Washington Mutual Bank (the “Servicer”), do hereby certify toLong Beach Securities Corp. (the “Depositor”), pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of  April 1, 2006 (as amended, the “Servicing Agreement”) by and between the Depositor, the Servicer, and Deutsche BankNational Trust Company, as Trustee,  the following with respect to Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-3 for the 2006 fiscal year  (the “Relevant Year”):

 

 

1.        A review of the activities of the Servicer during the Relevant Year and of performance under the ServicingAgreement has been made under my supervision.

2.        To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under theServicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Relevant Year.

 

 

Dated as of February 22, 2007.

                                                                       

                                                                          /s/H. John Berens
| __________________________________________

Name:  H. John Berens

Title:    Senior Vice President |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,554,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               49,031,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  7,588,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            63,951,000
<PP&E>                                     874,108,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             445,512,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             804,128,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       56,545,000
<BONDS>                                    589,257,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     148,877
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               804,128,000
<SALES>                                    114,440,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           114,440,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              101,464,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               793,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          22,720,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (9,537,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (174,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (9,363,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (9,363,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
---

EXHIBIT 32.1








Certificate 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 U.S. Neurosurgical, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Alan Gold, President and Chief Executive Officer of U.S. Neurosurgical, Inc., 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 results of operations of U.S. Neurosurgical, Inc.








/s/ Alan Gold


Alan Gold


President and Chief Executive Officer


August 16, 2010
{"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 November 15, 2019","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"fM5wME0U0L\"><a href=\"\/oti\/revocations-november-15-2019\/\">Revocations November 15, 2019<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/revocations-november-15-2019\/embed\/#?secret=fM5wME0U0L\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Revocations November 15, 2019” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"fM5wME0U0L\" 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"}
#### Gevorg BEGLARYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-73315.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 5, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 18, 2010.

Gevorg Beglaryan, Glendale, CA, pro se.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Matthew Z. Leopold, U.S. Dept, of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: FISHER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and STROM, District Judge.**

*

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

**

 The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

We deny Beglaryan’s petition for review.

*3041. The inconsistency between Beglaryan’s oral testimony and his written declaration with regard to his stated political affiliation undermines his credibility. This discrepancy, which Beglaryan did not adequately explain, goes to the heart of Beglaryan’s claim that he suffered persecution as a result of his work to expose human trafficking with the help of his political party. This unexplained discrepancy supports the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) adverse credibility finding.

2. At his hearing before the IJ, Beglaryan appeared slow to recall a crucial encounter with the Armenian military, undercutting the plausibility of his testimony. Only after his counsel’s repeated questioning did Beglaryan finally recount a dramatic incident involving a TV appearance cut short by military intervention. This hesitation also casts doubt on Beglaryan’s credibility and supports the adverse credibility finding.

3. The IJ’s finding that Beglaryan’s testimony conflicted with the State Department Country Report was not supported by substantial evidence. The Country Report’s short description of a single attempt by the Armenian government to prosecute human trafficking offenders does not imply that Armenian prosecutorial authorities uniformly support efforts to end human trafficking. Thus the Country Report does not undermine Beglaryan’s testimony.

Given the inconsistency between Beglaryan’s oral and written statements of political party affiliation, as well as the manner in which he surfaced the television station incident, we conclude that the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals to affirm the IJ’s denial of relief was supported by substantial evidence. *See Wang v. INS,*352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*304ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF


CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350






In
connection with the accompanying Yearly Report on Form 10-KSB/A of HSM Holdings,
Inc. for the year ending December 31, 2007, I, Anthony Hu , Chief Executive
Officer of HSM Holdings, Inc. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the
best of my knowledge and belief, that:




1.
            Such
      Yearly Report of Form 10-KSB/A for the year ending December 31,2007, fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
            The
      information contained in such Yearly Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the year
      ended December 31, 2007, fairly represents in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of HSM Holdings,
      Inc.









Date: 
      October 1, 2008HSM
      Holdings, Inc.By:
      /s/
      Anthony HuChief
      Executive Officer
86 A.3d 864

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. Bruce B. PERSON, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

March 12, 2014.

*563
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 12th day of March, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, the Order of the Superior Court is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the Superior Court for reconsideration in light of *Commonwealth v. Hanson,*82 A.3d 1023 (Pa.2013).
Exhibit 26


Consent of Mark Petersen





I consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of New Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, of references to my name in connection with, mineral reserve and resource estimates for the Peak Gold Mines, New Afton Project, Mesquite Mine, Cerro San Pedro Mine, El Morro Project and Blackwater Project, included in the Annual Information Form of New Gold Inc. for the financial year ended December 31, 2012, and I consent to the incorporation by reference of such information in the registration statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-160500) of New Gold Inc.








Dated this 27th day of March, 2013








“Mark Petersen”Name:
Mark PetersenTitle:
P. Eng., and Vice President, Exploration of New Gold Inc.