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 Novastar Financial, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Scott F. Hartman, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive 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:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                                                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 9, 2007 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Scott F. Hartman                                   
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Scott F. Hartman Chairman of the Board of Directors and
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer                                

This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard
contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
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

###### Office of the Secretary 

# AGENCY:

Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary is announcing a public meeting of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Public Advisory Group. 

# DATES:

April 4, 2001, at 9 a.m. 

# ADDRESSES:

Fourth floor conference room, 645 “G” Street, Anchorage, Alaska. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Douglas Mutter, Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, 1689 “C” Street, Suite 119, Anchorage, Alaska, (907) 271-5011. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The Public Advisory Group was created by Paragraph V.A.4 of the Memorandum of Agreement and Consent Decree entered into by the United States of America and the State of Alaska on August 27, 1991, and approved by the United States District Court for the District of Alaska in settlement of                     *United States of America*                     v.                     *State of Alaska,*                     Civil Action No. A91-081 CV. The meeting agenda will feature an orientation for Public Advisory Group members and briefings on the Gulf Ecosystem Monitoring program and the annual restoration work plan.                 

Dated: February 27, 2001. 

Willie R. Taylor, 

Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 01-5257 Filed 3-2-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-RG-P
#### BIN LIN, a.k.a. Zhende Chen, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-70303.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 18, 2011.

Bin Lin, Flushing, NY, pro se.

Aric Allan Anderson, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Bin Lin, native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial *160evidence factual findings. *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481 & n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny the petition for review.

Even if Lin is credible, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Lin did not establish the incident in which he was detained for one day and beaten rose to the level of persecution. *See Gu v. Gonzales,*454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir.2006). Furthermore, the record does not compel the conclusion that Lin established a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of his religion or political opinion. *See Nagoulko v. INS,*333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.2003) (record evidence did not show petitioner had objectively reasonable basis for future fear).

Because Lin failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it follows that he has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. *See Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Finally, the record does not compel the conclusion it is more likely than not that Lin will be tortured if he returns to China. *See Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM NEW VISUAL
ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY BALANCE SHEET AS OF APRIL 30, 1999 AND
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED APRIL 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       23
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    23
<PP&E>                                             307
<DEPRECIATION>                                     175
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     247
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              975
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            55
<OTHER-SE>                                       (783)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       247
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    44
<CGS>                                               70
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   470
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (496)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (496)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (496)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)


</TABLE>
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2773

To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize veterans who are totally

disabled as the result of a service-connected disability to travel on military aircraft in the same manner and to the same extent as retired

members of the Armed Forces are entitled to travel on such

aircraft.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 28, 1993

Mr. MONTGOMERY (by request) introduced the following bill; which was

referred to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize veterans

who are totally disabled as the result of a service-connected disability to travel on military aircraft in the

same manner and to the same extent as retired members

of the Armed Forces are entitled to travel on such aircraft.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That chapter 157 of title 10, United States Code, is

4 amended by adding at the end the following new section:
2

•HR 2773 IH

1 ‘‘§ 2643. Travel privileges on military aircraft: totally

2 disabled veterans

3 ‘‘(a) A veteran who is entitled to compensation from

4 the Department of Veterans Affairs for a service-con5 nected disability rated total in degree by the Secretary of

6 Veterans Affairs is entitled, in the same manner and to

7 the same extent as retired members of the armed forces,

8 to travel on a space-available basis on unscheduled mili9 tary flights within the continental United States and on

10 scheduled overseas flights operated by the Military Airlift

11 Command.

12 ‘‘(b) In this section, the term ‘veteran’ has the mean13 ing given that term in section 101(2) of title 38.’’.

14 SEC. 2. The table of section at the beginning of chap15 ter 157 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by

16 adding at the end the following new item:

‘‘2643. Travel privileges on military aircraft: totally disabled veterans.’’.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 11300]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4440]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 
Special Emphasis Panel. ZHL1-PPG-O-M1/Inflamation, Airways 
Reactivity and Asthma Applications.
    Date: March 7, 2001.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 1 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Chevy Chase Holiday Inn, 5520 Wisconsin Ave., Chevy 
Chase, MD 20815.
    Contact Person: David T. George, MD, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, NIH, NHLBI, DEA, Review Branch, Rockledge Building 
II, Room 7188, 6701 Rockledge Drive, MD 20892-7924, 301/435-0288.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, 
National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and 
Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, 
Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 14, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-4440 Filed 2-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 42 (Friday, March 2, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 13103]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5072]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD


Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review

    Summary: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) has submitted 
the following proposal(s) for the collection of information to the 
Office of Management and Budget for review and approval.

Summary of Proposal(s)

    (1) Collection title: Application for RRB Survivor Annuities.
    (2) Form(s) submitted: AA-17, AA-17b, AA-17cert, AA-18, AA-19, AA-
20.
    (3) OMB Number: 3220-0030.
    (4) Expiration date of current OMB clearance: September 30, 2001.
    (5) Type of request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    (6) Respondents: Individuals or households.
    (7) Estimated annual number of respondents: 4,137.
    (8) Total annual responses: 4,137.
    (9) Total amount reporting hours: 1,718.
    (10) Collection description: Under Section 2(d) of the Railroad 
Retirement Act, monthly survivors annuities are payable to surviving 
widow(ers), parents, unmarried children, and in certain cases, divorced 
wives (husbands), mothers, (fathers), remarried widow(ers) and 
grandchildren of deceased railroad employees. The collection obtains 
information needed by the RRB for determining entitlement to and amount 
of annuity applied for.

Additional Information or Comments

    Copies of the forms and supporting documents can be obtained from 
Chuck Mierzwa, the agency clearance officer (312-751-3363). Comments 
regarding the information collection should be addressed to Ronald J. 
Hodapp., Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, 
Illinois, 60611-2092 and the OMB reviewer, Joe Lackey (202-395-7316), 
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10203, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.

Chuck Mierzwa,
Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-5072 Filed 3-1-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7905-01-M
Presidential Documents

1251

Federal Register

Vol. 66, No. 4

Friday, January 5, 2001

Title 3—

The President

Notice of January 4, 2001

Continuation of Libya Emergency

On January 7, 1986, by Executive Order 12543, President Reagan declared

a national emergency to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat

to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted

by the actions and policies of the Government of Libya. On January 8,

1986, by Executive Order 12544, the President took additional measures

to block Libyan assets in the United States. The President has transmitted

a notice continuing this emergency to the Congress and the Federal Register

every year since 1986.

The crisis between the United States and Libya that led to the declaration

of a national emergency on January 7, 1986, has not been resolved. Despite

the United Nations Security Council’s suspension of U.N. sanctions against

Libya upon the Libyan government’s hand over of the Pan Am 103 bombing

suspects, there are still concerns about the Libyan government’s support

for terrorist activities and its noncompliance with United Nations Security

Council Resolutions 731 (1992), 748 (1992), and 883 (1993).

Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies

Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing the national emergency with respect

to Libya. This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and trans-

[FR Doc. 01–527

mitted to the Congress.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

January 4, 2001.

œ–

Filed 01–04–01; 11:56 am]

Billing code 3195–01–P
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 11.1

                               GC COMPANIES, INC.

                                OCTOBER 31, 1996

                              EXHIBIT TO FORM 10-K


Computation of average number of shares outstanding used in determining primary
and fully diluted earnings per share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
(In thousands)                                         1996         1995         1994
                                                       ----         ----         ----
<S>                                                   <C>          <C>          <C>  


PRIMARY

1.       Weighted average number of
         Common shares outstanding                    7,816        7,812        7,796

2.       Assumed exercise of certain stock
         options based on average
         market value                                    35           43           45
                                                      -----        -----        -----

3.       Weighted average number of shares
         used in primary per share
         computations                                 7,851        7,855        7,841
                                                      =====        =====        =====


FULLY DILUTED (A)

1.       Weighted average number of
         Common shares outstanding                    7,816        7,812        7,796

2.       Assumed exercise of all dilutive
         options based on higher of
         average or closing market value                 36           46           46
                                                      -----        -----        -----

3.       Weighted average number of shares
         used in fully diluted per share
         computations                                 7,852        7,858        7,842
                                                      =====        =====        =====
</TABLE>




(A)      This calculation is submitted in accordance with Securities Exchange
         Act of 1934 Release No. 9083 although not required by Footnote 2 to
         Paragraph 14 of APB Opinion No. 15 because it results in dilution of
         less than 3%.
2009-1325.

#### State v. Crossty.

Butler App. No. CA2008-03-070, 2009-Ohio-2800.
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Boulder Capital Opportunities II,
Inc. (the Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended herein as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I. Michael J. Delaney, Chief
Executive and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 fully presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          or the Company.

Date:  May 13, 2005
                                                        /s/  Michael J. Delaney
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                                        Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James DURAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-4132.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Jan. 19, 2011.

*140Diana Hagen, Esq., Office of the United States Attorney, Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

James Duran, Herlong, CA, pro se.

Before MURPHY, GORSUCH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

MICHAEL R. MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

This matter is before the court on James Duran’s pro se request for a certifícate of appealability (“COA”). Duran seeks a COA so he can appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1)(B). Because Duran has not “made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” *id.*§ 2253(c)(2), this court denies his request for a COA and dismisses this appeal.

Following a jury trial, Duran was convicted of multiple counts of violating federal drug and firearm prohibitions. *United States v. Duran,*213 Fed.Appx. 764, 765 (10th Cir.2007). This court affirmed Duran’s convictions on appeal, concluding that neither the issues raised by counsel nor the issues raised by Duran in a pro se brief had any merit. *Id.*at 767-68. Duran thereafter filed the instant § 2255 motion, raising numerous issues, many of which had multiple sub-issues. After carefully parsing Duran’s voluminous and often opaque filings, the district court denied Duran’s § 2255 motion on the merits.

The granting of a COA is a jurisdictional prerequisite to Duran’s appeal from the denial of his § 2255 motion. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). To be entitled to a COA, Duran must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make the requisite showing, he must demonstrate “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the [motion] should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” *Id.*(quotations omitted). In evaluating whether Duran has satisfied his burden, this court undertakes “a preliminary, though not definitive, consideration of the [legal] framework” applicable to each of his claims. *Id.*at 338, 123 S.Ct. 1029. Although Duran need not demonstrate his appeal will succeed to be entitled to a COA, he must “prove something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith.” *Id.*

Having undertaken a review of Duran’s appellate filings, the district court’s order, and the entire record before this court pursuant to the framework set out by the Supreme Court in *Miller-El,*we conclude Duran is not entitled to a COA. The district court’s resolution of Duran’s § 2255 *141motion is not reasonably subject to debate and the issues he seeks to raise on appeal are not adequate to deserve further proceedings. Accordingly, this court DENIES Duran’s request for a COA and DISMISSES this appeal.