alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32

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


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Stonewall  Financial,  Ltd.,
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "REPORT"),  the undersigned,  B.
Stephen Bailey,  Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that to the best of my  knowledge  and
belief:

         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 result of  operations of the
Company.


Date: April 19, 2004

/s/ B. Stephen Bailey
B. Stephen Bailey
President
(Principal Executive & Accounting Officer)


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### §271e. Report to President

Within three years from November 12, 1971, the Secretary of the Interior shall report to the President, in accordance with section 1132(c) and (d) of this title, his recommendations as to the suitability or nonsuitability of any area within the national park for preservation as wilderness, and any designation of any such area as a wilderness shall be accomplished in accordance with said section 1132(c) and (d) of this title.

(Pub. L. 88–590, §6, as added Pub. L. 92–154, §1(d), Nov. 12, 1971, 85 Stat. 421.)
### §410aaa–4. Withdrawal

Subject to valid existing rights, all Federal lands within the park are hereby withdrawn from all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws; from location, entry, and patent under the United States mining laws; and from disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral and geothermal leasing, and mineral materials, and all amendments thereto.

(Pub. L. 103–433, title III, §305, Oct. 31, 1994, 108 Stat. 4486.)
### §3602. United States representation on Council and Commissions

#### (a) Appointment and qualifications of Commissioners

The United States shall be represented on the Council and Commissions by three United States Commissioners to be appointed by the President to serve at his pleasure. Of such Commissioners, one shall be an official of the United States Government, and two shall be individuals (not officials of the United States Government) who are knowledgeable or experienced concerning the conservation and management of salmon of United States origin.

#### (b) Alternate Commissioners

The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior, may designate alternate United States Commissioners. In the absence of a Commissioner appointed under subsection (a) of this section, an alternate Commissioner may exercise at any meeting of the Organization, the Council, or any Commission all functions of such Commissioner.

#### (c) Limited Federal employee status

Individuals who serve as Commissioners and alternate Commissioners shall not receive any compensation for such service. Such individuals shall not be considered to be Federal employees while performing such service, except for purposes of injury compensation or tort claims liability as provided in chapter 81 of title 5 and chapter 171 of title 28.

#### (d) Consultation with other parties

In carrying out their functions under the Convention, the Commissioners may consult with the appropriate Regional Fishery Management Councils established by section 302 of the Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1852), and may consult with such other interested parties as they consider appropriate. Chapter 10 of title 5 shall not apply to consultations described in this subsection.

(Pub. L. 97–389, title III, §303, Dec. 29, 1982, 96 Stat. 1952; Pub. L. 98–44, title I, §102(1), July 12, 1983, 97 Stat. 216; Pub. L. 117–286, §4(a)(117), Dec. 27, 2022, 136 Stat. 4318.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2022—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 117–286 substituted "Chapter 10 of title 5" for "The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. et seq.)".

1983—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 98–44 substituted "shall not be considered" for "shall be considered".
FROM: THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, COUNTY OF LINCOLN.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. EDWARD MERLE COUNTS, Defendant.

NO. DC-88-63 DECISION

On January 16, 1989, the Defendant was sentenced to Count I, twenty (20 years for Burglary; Count II, ten (10 years for Theft; said sentences are to be served concurrently; with credit for 72 days time served.

On April 23, 1990, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and was represented by Jane Greek, of the Montana Defender Project. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it if such is possible. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall remain the same as originally imposed.

*25DATED this 23rd day of April, 1990.

The reason for the decision is based upon Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division.
### **CHAPTER 19—NORTH PACIFIC FISHERIES**
#### § 46.113 Suspension or termination of IRB approval of research.

An IRB shall have authority to suspend or terminate approval of research that is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB's requirements or that has been associated with unexpected serious harm to subjects. Any suspension or termination of approval shall include a statement of the reasons for the IRB's action and shall be reported promptly to the investigator, appropriate institutional officials, and the department or agency head.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0990-0260)

[56 FR 28012, 28020, June 18, 1991, as amended at 70 FR 36328, June 23, 2005]
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 5 A0 57 9 . Z AREM v . SOUTHCOAST PROPERTI ES, LLC et a l

.

Al l i s o n Z arem fi l ed an ap p l i cat i o n fo r d i scret i o nary rev i ew of t h e t ri al co urt ’ s

o rd er en t eri n g ju d g m e n t i n h er fav o r i n t h e am o u n t o f $2 ,6 2 2

. 9 2. W e g ran t ed t h e

ap p li cat io n b ecau se, al t h o u g h th e l i t i g at i o n b eg an as a di s p os s es s o ry p ro ceed i n g i n

m ag i s t rat e co u rt

, t h e s t at e co u rt ’ s rev i ew was n ot de n o v o an d

, t h u s , t he d i s cret i o n ary

ap p eal p ro ced u re req u i red u n d er OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (1 1 ) d id n o t ap p l y h e re.

Ho wev er, a cl o s er rev i ew rev eal s t h at a d i s cret iona r y a p plic a ti on was i n d eed req u i red

, al b ei t o n a d ifferen t b as i s - nam el y , th at Zarem s o u g h t to ap p e a l i n a n act i o n fo r

d am a g e s i n wh i ch t h e ju d g m en t i s $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 or l es s

. OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (6 ). See

Ha r pa g on Co ., LLC v. Da vi s , 2 8 3 Ga. 4 1 0

, 4 1 2 (6 58 SE2 d 6 3 3) (2 00 8 ).

In an y ev en t

, fo l l o wi n g ou r rev i ew of t h e cas e, i n cl u d in g co ns i d erat i o n o f t h e

co m p l et e reco rd o n ap p eal

, w e h av e d e t e r m i n ed th at t h ere w as n o erro r i n t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s d eci s i o n

. Th e ap p l icat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal h av i n g t h u s b een i m p ro v i d en t l y

g ran t ed

, t h e ap p eal i s h ereb y DISM ISSED. See W i l l i a m s v. McCa r t h

y , 3 29 Ga. Ap p.

8 5 , 8 6 (7 6 3 SE2 d 7 4 8 ) (2 0 1 4 ).

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 07/13/2015 July 13, 2015
Pictured are two Caucasian Male and Female superhero’s facing eachother, washing their hands in a sink with a dual faucet. Under the duo is the text “Alkl superheroes love clean hands!”
#### § 505.3 Inmates exempted from fee assessment.

Inmates who began service of sentence before January 1, 1995, or who have had a fine either imposed or expressly waived by the United States District Court, pursuant to Section 5E1.2 (e) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, or any successor provisions, are exempt from fee assessment otherwise required by this part.
COVID-19: Quarantine vs. Isolation

QUARANTINE keeps someone who was 

in close contact with someone who has 

COVID-19 away from others.

If you had close contact with a 

person who has COVID-19

• Stay home until 14 days after your 

last contact.

• Check your temperature twice a day 

and watch for symptoms of COVID-19.

• If possible, stay away from people who 

are at higher-risk for getting very sick 

from COVID-19.

ISOLATION keeps someone who is sick or 

tested positive for COVID-19 without 

symptoms away from others, even in 

their own home.

If you are sick and think or know 

you have COVID-19

• Stay home until after

ū At least 10 days since symptoms 

first appeared and

ū At least 24 hours with no fever without 

fever-reducing medication and

ū Symptoms have improved

If you tested positive for COVID-19 

but do not have symptoms

Inform 

National 

Picture of 

COVID-19

Case 

Identification

Testing 

Expansion

Healthcare 

Monitoring

Illness 

Monitoring

Collect and Analyze Data to 

Understand COVID-19 and Its Spread

Provide Tools and Guidance 

to Minimize Impact

Critical 

Infrastructure 

Guidance

Vulnerable Populations 

Protection Strategies

Travel 

Guidance

Contact 

Tracing

Clinical 

Recommendations

• Stay home until after 

ū 10 days have passed since your 

positive test

If you live with others, stay in a specific 

“sick room” or area and away from other 

people or animals, including pets. Use a 

separate bathroom, if available.

cdc.gov/coronavirus

CS317422-A 7/20/2020 7AM
#### § 357.1 Common carriers.

All common carriers by pipeline subject to the provisions of Part I of Interstate Commerce Act, as amended, are hereby required hereinafter to file in the office of the Commission on or before the 31st day of March in each year, reports covering the period of 12 months ending with the 31st day of December preceding said date, giving the particulars heretofore called for in the annual reports required by the Commission of said carriers.

[Order 119, 46 FR 9051, Jan. 28, 1981]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-1317
FELICIA BAGLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DULANEY STATION, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-95- 3865) Submitted: March 26, 1998 Decided: April 6, 1998 Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Felicia Bagley, Ap pellant Pro Se. Daniel Karp, ALLEN, JOHNSON, ALEXANDER & KARP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment for Appellee on Appellant's claims of gender discrimination, retaliatory discharge, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Bagley v. Dulaney Station, Inc. , No. CA-95-3865 (D. Md. Feb. 12, 1997). 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
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ANDREW

L. M AC KEY, Pe titione r-Appe lla nt,
v. W ILLIAM M U

NIZ, W arde n , R

e sponde nt -Appe lle e . 14-17260 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-01245-TLNC KD
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ea s te rn C a lifornia Troy L. Nunle y , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d June 6, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SILVER

M AN a nd NGUYEN, C i rc u it Judge s, a nd GAR B IS, Se nior Distric t Judge
. *** 

# FIL ED JUL 19 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honora

ble M arvin J. Ga

rbis, Se nior Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of M a

ry la nd, sitting by

de signa tion.Andre w M a c k e y a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l of his pe tition for a writ of ha be a s c orpus. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 2253, a

nd we
a ffirm
. M a c ke y , who suffe rs from se ve re m e nta l im

pa i rm e nts, file d the insta

nt ha be a s pe tition c ha lle nging his c onvic tion of c hild m ole sta tion re late d offe nse s a fte r the e xpira

tion of theone -y e ar statute of lim ita tions se t forth in 28 U.S.C . § 2244(d). C onspic uously

m issing from

the re c ord is a

ny te s tim ony from

M a c ke y to the e ffe c t tha t he wa nte d to filea

fe de ra l ha

be a s pe tition but did not ha ve the a bility to do so him se l f and did not know how to ge t he lp. The distric t c ourt dismisse d the pe tition a s untim e ly and de c l ine d

to a pply
e quita ble tolling to exte nd the lim ita tions pe riod. R e vie wing thedism issa l of M a c ke y ’ s pe tition denovo, Unite d State s v . Av e ry , 719 F.3d 1080, 1082 (9th C ir. 2013), we a gre e with thedistric t c ourt tha t e quita ble tolling is ina

ppropria te be c a use the re c ord doe s not re fle c t a ny dilige nc e on M a c ke y ’ s pa rt in a tte m p ting to file his fe de ra l ha

be a s pe tition within the

lim ita tions pe riod. Se eHolland v
. Florida , 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010) (noting a pe titione r is e ligiblefor e quita ble tolling only

if he pursue d rights dilige ntly and would ha

ve tim e ly file d but for
som e e xtra o rdina

ry c irc um sta

nc e ); se ealso Yow

Ming Ye h v . Marte l , 751 F.3d 21075, 1078 (9th C ir. 2014) (“ [E] ve n in c a se s of de bilita ting im pa irm e nt the pe titione r m

ust still dem onstra

te dilige nc e .” ). The re fore , the pe tition wa s untim e ly
and wa s prope rly

dism isse d. 1 AFFIRM E D.

1 B e c a use M a c ke y ’ s pe tition wa s not time ly file d, the que stion of whe the r M a c ke y e xha uste d his sta

te re m e die s is m oot. 3
----

----

|   | (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 result of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                         |   |   |   |   |
|------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/      George Metrakos     |   |   |   |   |
| George      Metrakos         |   |   |   |   |
| Chief      Financial Officer |   |   |   |   |
|                         |   |   |   |   |
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 WOM, Inc. (the “Company”)on
      Form 10-QSB
      for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Frederic M. Zinn, the
      principal executive officer and Michael L. Vizzie, principal financial officer,
      certifies 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 fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:
      November 14, 2006














/s/
      Frederic M. Zinn


Frederic
      M. Zinn

















/s/
      Michael L. Vizzie


Michael
      L. Vizzie
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: April 9, 2015 519753 

________________________________

In the Matter of the Claim of 

JILL WILLETTE,

Respondent.

PARK RIDE FLY USA, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appellant.

COMMISSIONER OF LABOR,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: February 24, 2015

Before: Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose and Devine, JJ.

__________

Tabner, Ryan & Keniry, LLP, Albany (Brian M. Quinn of

counsel), for appellant.

Cynthia Feathers, Glens Falls, for Jill Willette,

respondent.

__________

Appeals from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance

Appeal Board, filed December 13, 2013, which ruled, among other

things, that Park Ride Fly USA was liable for unemployment

insurance contributions based on remuneration paid to claimant

and others similarly situated.

Substantial evidence supports the decisions of the

Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant and others

similarly situated were the employees of Park Ride Fly USA. Park

Ride operates a website where individuals can reserve parking

near airports across the United States, and claimant worked for

it as a customer service agent. Claimant was required to answer

telephone calls from customers, which were routed to her home
-2- 519753 

using specialized equipment that Park Ride provided. She

received several weeks of training to perform that work, and

thereafter worked hours selected by her and approved by her

supervisor. Customer complaints were handled by Park Ride, and

supervisors monitored calls in order to ensure quality control. 

Claimant was further required to detail the hours she worked, was

paid a set amount per hour on a weekly basis, and was reimbursed

for expenses. Notwithstanding contrary evidence in the record,

the Board could readily find from the foregoing that Park Ride

"exercised sufficient direction and control over the services

performed by claimant and other persons similarly situated to

establish their status as employees" (Matter of Noblitt [Oxford

Univ. Press–Hudacs], 193 AD2d 1033, 1033 [1993]; see Matter of

Noel [Life Alert Emergency Response, Inc.–Commissioner of Labor],

38 AD3d 1082, 1083-1084 [2007]; Matter of Frattallone [Victor

Addressing Corp.–Levine], 39 AD2d 984, 984 [1972]). 

Park Ride's remaining argument has been considered and

found to be lacking in merit.

Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose and Devine, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
§ 50.5 Notification of Consular Officers upon the arrest of foreign nationals. ( a ) This statement is designed to establish a uniform procedure for consular notification where nationals of foreign countries are arrested by officers of this Department on charges of criminal violations. It conforms to practice under international law and in particular implements obligations undertaken by the United States pursuant to treaties with respect to the arrest and detention of foreign nationals. Some of the treaties obligate the United States to notify the consular officer only upon the demand or request of the arrested foreign national. On the other hand, some of the treaties require notifying the consul of the arrest of a foreign national whether or not the arrested person requests such notification. ( 1 ) In every case in which a foreign national is arrested the arresting officer shall inform the foreign national that his consul will be advised of his arrest unless he does not wish such notification to be given. If the foreign national does not wish to have his consul notified, the arresting officer shall also inform him that in the event there is a treaty in force between the United States and his country which requires such notification, his consul must be notified regardless of his wishes and, if such is the case, he will be advised of such notification by the U.S. Attorney.
( 2 ) In all cases (including those where the foreign national has stated that he does not wish his consul to be notified) the local office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the local Marshal's office, as the case may be, shall inform the nearest U.S. Attorney of the arrest and of the arrested person's wishes regarding consular notification.
( 3 ) The U.S. Attorney shall then notify the appropriate consul except where he has been informed that the foreign national does not desire such notification to be made. However, if there is a treaty provision in effect which requires notification of consul, without reference to a demand or request of the arrested national, the consul shall be notified even if the arrested person has asked that he not be notified. In such case, the U.S. Attorney shall advise the foreign national that his consul has been notified and inform him that notification was necessary because of the treaty obligation.
( b ) The procedure prescribed by this statement shall not apply to cases involving arrests made by the Immigration and Naturalization Service in administrative expulsion or exclusion proceedings, since that Service has heretofore established procedures for the direct notification of the appropriate consular officer upon such arrest. With respect to arrests made by the Service for violations of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws, the U.S. Marshal, upon delivery of the foreign national into his custody, shall be responsible for informing the U.S. Attorney of the arrest in accordance with numbered paragraph 2 of this statement.
[Order No. 375-67, 32 FR 1040, Jan. 28, 1967]