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


Statement 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 on Form 10-Q/A of Knight Capital Group, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Thomas M. Joyce, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:


|   |                                                                                                                       
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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/    THOMASM. JOYCEName:Title:Date:Thomas M. JoyceChief Executive OfficerMay 10, 2013


This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

#  Austin, Hamada Sign Documents to Strengthen Alliance Interoperability

By Jim GaramoneDOD News

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 11-763V

Filed: June 18, 2015

Not for Publication

*************************************

GREGORY H. LADNER, *

*

 Petitioner, * Attorneys’ fees and costs decision based on

 * stipulation of fact

v. *

 *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

*

*************************************

Jill M. Follows, Washington, DC, for petitioner.

Glenn A. MacLeod, Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On June 18, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation of fact in which they agreed on an 

appropriate amount for attorneys’ fees and costs in this case. 

In accordance with General Order #9, petitioner asserts that he did not incur any costs in 

pursuit of his petition. On May 22, 2015, petitioner filed his application for attorneys’ fees and 

costs. During informal discussions, respondent raised objections to certain aspects of petitioner’s

application. Based on these objections, petitioner amends his application for attorneys’ fees and 

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this 

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal 

Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made 

available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is 

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and 

move to redact such information prior to the document=s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, 

agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall 

redact such material from public access.
2

costs to $19,000.00. Respondent does not object to this amount. The undersigned finds this 

amount to be reasonable. Accordingly, the court awards $19,000.00, representing reimbursement 

for attorneys’ fees and costs. The award shall be in the form of a check payable jointly to 

petitioner and Law Offices of Jill Follows for $19,000.00.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the 

court is directed to enter judgment herewith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2015 s/ Laura D. Millman

 Laura D. Millman

 Special Master

 

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or 

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ADRIAN SIMS

- EL,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 130 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 26th day of July, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
§ 1000.52 What criteria will the Director use to award advance planning grants? Advance planning grants are discretionary and based on need. The Director will use the following criteria to determine whether or not to award a planning grant to a Tribe/Consortium before the Tribe/Consortium is selected into the applicant pool. ( a ) Completeness of application as described in § 1000.50.
( b ) Financial need. The Director will rank applications according to the percent of Tribal resources that comprise total resources covered by the latest A-133 audit. Priority will be given to applications that have a lower level of Tribal resources as a percent of total resources.
( c ) Other factors that the Tribe may identify as documenting its previous efforts to participate in self-governance and demonstrating its readiness to enter into a self-governance agreement.
### §10143. Ready Reserve: Selected Reserve

(a) Within the Ready Reserve of each of the reserve components there is a Selected Reserve. The Selected Reserve consists of units, and, as designated by the Secretary concerned, of Reserves, trained as prescribed in section 10147(a)(1) of this title or section 502(a) of title 32, as appropriate.

(b) The organization and unit structure of the Selected Reserve shall be approved—

(1) in the case of all reserve components other than the Coast Guard Reserve, by the Secretary of Defense based upon recommendations from the military departments as approved by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in accordance with contingency and war plans; and

(2) in the case of the Coast Guard Reserve, by the Secretary of Homeland Security upon the recommendation of the Commandant of the Coast Guard.

(Added Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title XVI, §1661(a)(1), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2972; amended Pub. L. 107–296, title XVII, §1704(b)(1), Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2314.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 268(b), (c) of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 103–337, §1661(a)(2)(A).

#### Amendments

2002—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 107–296 substituted "of Homeland Security" for "of Transportation".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2002 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 107–296 effective on the date of transfer of the Coast Guard to the Department of Homeland Security, see section 1704(g) of Pub. L. 107–296, set out as a note under section 101 of this title.

#### Effective Date

Section effective Dec. 1, 1994, except as otherwise provided, see section 1691 of Pub. L. 103–337, set out as a note under section 10001 of this title.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 12 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                       January 6, 1999.
Whereas, George Miller, a Representative-elect from the Seventh District of the 
        State of California, has been unable from illness to appear in person to 
        be sworn as a Member of the House, and there being no contest or 
        question as to his election: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Speaker, or deputy named by him, is hereby authorized to 
administer the oath of office to the Honorable George Miller at Martinez, 
California, and that such oath be accepted and received by the House as the oath 
of office of the Honorable George Miller.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Eliza Glover, Respondent, v. United States Health and Accident Insurance Company, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concurred.
### **CHAPTER 1—DEFINITIONS, RULES OF CONSTRUCTION, CROSS REFERENCES, AND RELATED MATTERS**

Sec.
101.
Definitions.
102.
Effect of certain amendments on conforming changes to tables of sections, tables of contents, and similar tabular entries.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2022**—Pub. L. 117–263, div. A, title X, §1081(e)(1), (2), Dec. 23, 2022, 136 Stat. 2798, substituted "DEFINITIONS, RULES OF CONSTRUCTION, CROSS REFERENCES, AND RELATED MATTERS" for "DEFINITIONS" in chapter heading and added item 102. Addition of item 102 was made pursuant to operation of section 102 of this title.
confidential









ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby
made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of December 1, 2011, by and among Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities
Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer and Midland Loan Services, A Division of PNC Bank,
National Association, as Special Servicer, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee, Certificate Administrator, Paying
Agent and Custodian, and Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc., as Operating Advisor, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates Series 2011-C1 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings
assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section
10.11 of this Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

| | 1. | A review of the
activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”),
and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2. | To the best of
my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.



________________________

Leslie Hayton

Managing Director
Wells Fargo Bank











confidential
EXHIBIT 99.2





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 Superior Financial Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Rick D. Gardner, 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:





| | 1. |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange act of 1934; and
| | -- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




| | 2. |  | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




/s/    Rick D. GardnerRick D. GardnerChief Financial Officer





November 5, 2002
# C_2013312EN.01002201.xml

| 26.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/22

---

Notice to economic operators — New round of requests for the suspension of the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial and agricultural products

2013/C 312/11

Economic operators are informed that the Commission has received requests in accordance with the administrative arrangements foreseen in the Commission communication concerning autonomous tariff suspensions and quotas (2011/C 363/02) (1) for the July round of 2014.

1

The list of the products for which a duty suspension is requested is now available on the Commission's thematic (Europa) website on the customs union (2).

2

Economic operators are also informed that the deadline for objections against new requests to reach the Commission, via the national administrations, is 9 December 2013 which is the date of the second scheduled meeting of the Economic Tariff Questions Group.

Interested operators are advised to consult the list regularly in order to be informed on the status of the requests.

More information on the autonomous tariff suspension procedure can be found on the Europa website:

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_duties/tariff_aspects/suspensions/index_en.htm

---

(1)  OJ C 363, 13.12.2011, p. 6.

1

(2)  http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/dds2/susp/susp_home.jsp?Lang=en

2

---
§ 142.9 How are orders accepted? ( a ) The Manager must make a formal determination to accept an order, for goods or services, and document the approval by issuing a permit or similar instrument.
( b ) The Seattle Support Center must prepare proper manifests of the freight accepted at the facility or other designated location. The manifest must follow industry standards to ensure a proper legal contract of carriage is executed, upon which payment can be exacted upon the successful delivery of the goods and services.
#### Henry Harold Ware v. The State.

No. 22891.

Delivered June 21, 1944.

The opinion state's the case.

*H. R. Bishop,*of Fort Worth, for appellant.

*Marvin H. Broivn, Jr.,*Criminal District Attorney!, *M. Hendricks Brown,*First Assistant District Attorney, and *Harry N. Ward,*Assistant District Attorney, all of Fort Worth, and *Ernest S. Goens,*State’s Attorney, of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Burglary is the offense; the punishment, two years in the State penitentiary.

*445That Everett’s Pharmacy, in Fort Worth, Texas, was, on the night of November 1,1945, burglarized, by someone, is shown by the testimony of the owners thereof. Appellant’s guilty participation in, and connection with, the burglary is established by his two written confessions. Such facts authorized the jury’s conclusion of guilt.

The appellant did not testify as a witness in his own behalf.

Appellant complains of the failure of the trial court to grant his first application for a continuance, because of the absence of the testimony of his wife, by whom he could have established an alibi. The State calls attention to the fact that said application for a continuance is defective in that it does not contain the averment. “That the application is not made for delay,” as provided by Subd. 5, Art. 543, C. C. P. Such omission renders the application fataly defective. Martinez v. State, 144 Tex. Cr. R. 143, 161 S. W. (2d) 75, and authorities there cited.

Bills of exception appear complaining of the receipt in evidence of the confessions. It appears that, on the 28th day of November, 1943, appellant made a written confession, and, on the following day, he made another. Both of these confessions were introduced in evidence by the State. Appellant insists that these two confessions are contradictory of each other in material details, and that, as a result thereof, neither has any probative force. While the confessions may be contradictory in some matters, there is no contradiction between them as to appellant’s guilty participation in, and connection with, the burglary. Each confession admits such fact, and this is all that is necessary to show appellant’s guilt. The confessions are shown to have been made in accordance with the law governing same (Art. 727, C. C. P.), and no valid objection to their introduction appears.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-4354

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Luis J. Garcia-Florido, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: May 13, 1998 Filed: September 1, 1998

___________ Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Luis Garcia-Florido appeals his sentence following a plea of guilty to dru g offenses. He contends that th e district court erred in refusing to grant him relief under the saf ety valve provisions of the Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Reform Act, 1 8 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5C1.2(5). We affirm.
U n der the safety-valve exception to statutory minimum sentences, a defendant may be given a

more lenient sentence within the otherwise applicable guideline range if, among other things, the defendant "truthfully provide[s] to the Government all-2-

informatio n

and evidence the defendant has concerning the offense or offenses tha t were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan." U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 (5); see also United States v. Weekly , 118 F.3d 576, 581 (8th Cir. 1996) , dissen t modified, 128 F.3d 1198 (8th Cir. 1997), cert. denied , 118 S. Ct. 611 (1997). A defendant has the burden to show, through affirm ative conduct, that he has given the governm ent

truthful information and evidence about the relevant crimes befor e sen tencing. See id. We review for clear error the district court's finding that GarciaFlorido did not satisfy that burden. See id. The d istrict court found that Garcia-Florido had not truthfully provided th e gov ernment

with such information. That finding was based on Garcia-Florido' s testimony at the trial of his co-conspirator, Raul Ramirez. In our view, Garcia

Flor ido's testimony in the Ramirez trial strains credulity. The district judge ha d presi ded over the Ramirez trial and had an opportunity to observe Garcia-Florido' s testimony and demean or. We find no clear error in the district court's failure to credit Garcia-Florido's testimony. Accordingly, Garcia-Florido's sentence is affirmed. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Clarence V. SCHAFFER and Katherine Schaffer, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 12083.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

Oct. 21, 1954.

Clifford F. Brown, Norwalk, Ohio, J. Vincent Aug, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellants.

Sumner Canary, Cleveland, Ohio, Clarence M. Condon, Toledo, Ohio, for appellee.

Before ALLEN, McALLISTER and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This case came on to be heard upon the record and briefs and oral arguments of counsel.

And it appearing that the amended complaint prays for judgment for the balance alleged to be due upon a certain promissory note executed by appellants;

And it appearing that a material fact in the controversy is whether the holder of the said promissory note who assigned it to appellee was a holder in due course;

And it being alleged in the answer that the note was negotiated and transferred to appellee after maturity and that the appellee was not a holder in due course thereof and no supporting affidavits being filed by either party;

And it appearing that the District Court sustained a motion for summary judgment filed by appellee and that under Rule 56 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., summary judgment may be granted only if there is no dispute as to any material fact, Fountain v. Filson, 336 U.S. 681, 69 S.Ct. 754, 93 L.Ed. 971; Estepp v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 6 Cir., 192 F.2d 889; Cf. Sartor v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corp., 321 U.S. 620, 627, 64 S.Ct. 724, 88 L.Ed. 967.

*331It is ordered that the judgment be and it hereby is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in accordance with this order.