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

----

|   |     |   |
|--------|---------------|--------|
|   | EXHIBIT 32.1  |   |

|   | Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

| Solely for purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned, Chief Executive Officer, Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of ALL Fuels & Energy Company (the “Company”), hereby certify that: |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (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: May 13, 2009. | ALL FUELS & ENERGY COMPANY |   |
|---------------------|--------------------------------|--------|

| By: | /s/ DEAN E. SUKOWATEY |   |
|-----|-----------------------|--------|

|   | Dean E. Sukowatey, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer), Acting Chief Financial Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
### §1581. Peonage; obstructing enforcement

(a) Whoever holds or returns any person to a condition of peonage, or arrests any person with the intent of placing him in or returning him to a condition of peonage, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.

(b) Whoever obstructs, or attempts to obstruct, or in any way interferes with or prevents the enforcement of this section, shall be liable to the penalties prescribed in subsection (a).

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 772; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title II, §218(a), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–573; Pub. L. 106–386, div. A, §112(a)(1), Oct. 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 1486.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§444, 445 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §§269, 270, 35 Stat. 1142).

Section consolidates sections 444 and 445 of said title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with changes in phraseology to amplify and clarify their provisions.

Reference to persons causing or procuring was omitted as unnecessary in view of definition of "principal" in section 2 of this title.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2000—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 106–386 substituted "20 years" for "10 years" and inserted at end "If death results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both."

1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–208 substituted "10 years" for "five years".

1994—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $5,000".

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

#### Effective Date of 1996 Amendment

Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title II, §218(d), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–574, provided that: "This section [amending this section and sections 1583, 1584, and 1588 of this title and enacting provisions set out as notes under section 994 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure] and the amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to offenses occurring on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [Sept. 30, 1996]."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEETS AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         455,369
<SECURITIES>                                    30,890
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,744,686
<ALLOWANCES>                                    15,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,738,221
<PP&E>                                       4,422,996
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,879,699
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,893,928
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            99
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,950,558
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,879,699
<SALES>                                     11,914,268
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,914,268
<CGS>                                        7,575,142
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,575,142
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,702,027
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             377,936
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,675,798)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,675,798)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,675,798)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.28)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6413
In Re: MICHAEL F. DEHONEY, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-94-1903-4-21BE) Submitted: May 1, 1997 Decided: May 13, 1997 Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael F. Dehoney, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Michael F. Dehoney, a state prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that a federal dist rict judge and a magistrate judge recuse themselves from all of his pending andfuture cases. In support of his petition, Dehoney provides a detailed list of the adverse rulings made by these judges in prior cases involving Dehoney. Because Dehoney appears diss atisfied merely with the judges's rulings in his cases, and he has not established any extrajudicial bias, recusal is not warranted. See In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987) (holding that natureof alleged bias must be personal and not arising out of litigation). Nor may mandamus be used as a substitute for an appeal. See id. at 826. We therefore deny Dehoney's petition for a writ of mandamus.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.

PETITION DENIED
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 Form 10-QSB of Newport International Group Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the nine months ending September 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Soloman Lam, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to 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: 12/12/2003                             /s/ Soloman Lam
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             By: Soloman Lam
                                             Its: Chief Executive Officer and
                                             Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,228
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,761
<PP&E>                                          12,520
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,701
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,177,587
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          741,525
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,632
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,889,431
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,177,587
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  817,973
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,416
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,423
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (849,812)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (849,812)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (849,812)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4908 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4908

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 23, 2020

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit the collection of a 
   health care copayment by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from a 
              veteran who is a member of an Indian tribe.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Native American Veteran Parity in 
Access to Care Today Act'' or ``Native American PACT Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON COLLECTION OF A HEALTH CARE COPAYMENT BY THE 
              SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS FROM A VETERAN WHO IS A 
              MEMBER OF AN INDIAN TRIBE.

    (a) In General.--Section 1730A of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in the heading, by striking ``catastrophically 
        disabled'' and inserting ``certain'';
            (2) by inserting ``(a) Prohibition.--'' before 
        ``Notwithstanding'';
            (3) by striking ``a veteran who is catastrophically 
        disabled, as defined by the Secretary,'' and inserting ``a 
        covered veteran''; and
            (4) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(b) Covered Veteran Defined.--In this section, the term `covered 
veteran' means a veteran who--
            ``(1) is catastrophically disabled, as defined by the 
        Secretary; or
            ``(2) is an Indian or urban Indian, as those terms are 
        defined in section 4 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act 
        (Public Law 94-437; 25 U.S.C. 1603).''.
    (b) Technical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 17 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to 
section 1730A and inserting the following:

``1730A. Prohibition on collection of copayments from certain 
                            veterans.''.
    (c) Delayed Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
shall take effect on the day that is one year after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 22, 2020.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Manhattan General Incorporated et al., Respondents, v. Mary Voss et al., Appellants.

*767No opinion. Settle order on notice. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Untermyer, Dore and Callahan, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              695
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          1069
<OTHER-SE>                                       (1764)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (2179)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (2179)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (2179)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF PACIFIC AEROSPACE & ELECTRONICS, INC., AND ITS
SUBSIDIARIES FOR THE YEAR ENDED MAY 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-2000
<CASH>                                       2,154,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               21,705,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   495,000
<INVENTORY>                                 27,849,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            53,753,000
<PP&E>                                      59,982,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              15,906,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             143,582,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       24,572,000
<BONDS>                                     68,926,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  49,738,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               143,582,000
<SALES>                                    112,694,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           112,694,000
<CGS>                                       92,063,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               24,533,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                33,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               140,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           9,959,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (13,731,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    21,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (13,752,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                703,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (13,049,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.59)


</TABLE>
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 12, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 06-20465

UNITY MARINE CORPORATION, INC. as owner of the M/V Carson

for exoneration from or limitation of liability,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

NEW AMITY SHIPPING, INC.; ASSOCIATED MARITIME CO.,

(HONG KONG) LTD.

Claimants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

After reviewing the record and considering the briefs of the

parties and argument of counsel, for the following reasons, we are

satisfied that the district court committed no reversible error:
2

The record fully supports the district court’s conclusion that

this collision was caused through the sole fault of the NEW AMITY,

her pilot and crew in (1) failing to keep out of the way of the

CARSON, as required by Rule 13 of the Inland Rules, and (2) by

traveling at an excessive rate of speed under the circumstances in

violation of Rule 6. See Matter of Complaint of Luhr Bros., Inc.,

157 F.3d 333, 338 (5th Cir. 1998) (“The appellate court must accept

the district court's account of the evidence if it is plausible

when viewed in light of the entire record. Moreover, where there

are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice

between them cannot be clearly erroneous.”) (citations omitted). 

Further, the district court did not err in allowing Unity’s

expert to testify nor in accepting his testimony over the testimony

of New Amity’s expert. Captain Scruton held an unlimited master’s

license and had 16 years of seagoing experience, including

experience aboard large tankers as well as aboard inland tugs. He

testified that he had served aboard large vessels in narrow

channels during passing situations and that he had observed first

hand the general movements of large vessels engaged in turns.

Given the similarity and relevance of these previous experiences to

Captain Scruton’s testimony in this case, the district court did

not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony. See Watkins

v. Telsmity, Inc., 121 F.3d 984, 988 (5th Cir. 1997) (“District

courts enjoy wide latitude in determining the admissibility of

expert testimony, and the discretion of the trial judge and his or
3

her decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless manifestly

erroneous.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

New Amity primarily challenges the credibility calls of the

district court which is almost exclusively in the province of the

trier of fact. See Luhr Bros., 157 F.3d at 337 (“Findings of fact,

whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set

aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to

the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of

the witnesses.”).

AFFIRMED.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 6691

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. RAYMOND COMEGYS, a/k/a Ray Ray, a/k/a Michael Brown , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. George L. Russell, III , District Judge. ( 1:14

- cr - 00248

- GLR

- 1 )

Submitted : October 19, 2021 Decided: October 22, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE , Circuit Judge , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Raymond Comegys , Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Ann DeFrancesco, Special Assistant U nited States Attorney , Brandon Keith Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Baltimore, M aryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM : Raymond Comegys appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review a district court’s order granting or denying a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United
States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021) , petition for cert. filed , No. 21

- 5624 (U.S. Sept. 8, 2021)

. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the court did not
abuse its discretion and sufficiently explained the reasons for the denial

. See United
States v. High , 997 F.3d 181, 188

- 91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing amount of explanation required for denial of straightforward compassionate release motion). We therefore affirm
the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED