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 Annual Report of NewPage Holding Corporation and NewPage Corporation (the
Companies) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark A. Suwyn, Chief Executive Officer of the Companies, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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 position and results of operations of the Companies.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Mark A. Suwyn      
|Mark A. Suwyn          
|Chief Executive Officer
|March 25, 2008
#### § 2.17 When does the basic time limit begin for misdirected FOIA requests?

The basic time limit for a misdirected FOIA request (see § 2.4(a) of this part) begins no later than ten workdays after the request is first received by any component of the Department that is designated to receive FOIA requests.

[77 FR 76902, Dec. 31, 2012, as amended at 84 FR 61827, Nov. 14, 2019]
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 21, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-41208

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FELICIA ROBERSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:04-CR-4-TJW-CMC

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

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:*

Felicia Roberson appeals from a guilty-plea conviction for

possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute and for

aiding and abetting in the offense. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1);

18 U.S.C. § 2. 

For the first time on appeal, Roberson argues that the

district court erred in imposing a sentence under a mandatory

guideline scheme, in violation of United States v. Booker, 542 
No. 04-41208

-2-

U.S. 220 (2005). We review for plain error. See United States

v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 732 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 267 (2005). Roberson has not shown that the

district court would have sentenced her differently under an

advisory sentencing scheme. Accordingly, Roberson has failed to

show that the district court’s imposition of a sentence under a

mandatory guideline scheme was plain error. See id. at 733-34.

AFFIRMED.
§ 2.16 What is the basic time limit for responding to a request? ( a ) Ordinarily, the bureau has 20 workdays (including the date of receipt) to determine whether to comply with a request, but unusual circumstances may allow the bureau to take longer than 20 workdays (see § 2.19 of this subpart).
( b ) A consultation or referral under § 2.13 of this part does not restart the statutory time limit for responding to a request.
[77 FR 76902, Dec. 31, 2012, as amended at 81 FR 11128, Mar. 3, 2016]
Exhibit 32.2

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 Annual Report of Smith Barney Tidewater Futures Fund L.P. (the ‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Jennifer Magro, Chief Financial Officer and Director of Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Partnership.

/s/ Jennifer Magro
Jennifer Magro
Citigroup Managed Futures LLC
Chief Financial Officer and Director

March 28, 2008
Date

---
CENTRAL VALLEY OPERATIONS OFFICE

STEELHEAD REPORT

February-07

Note: Bold numbers are not verified by DFG

Steelhead Estimated Salvage Steelhead Estimated Loss (Incidental Take) 

Daily SWP Daily CVP Daily Combined Season Combined Daily SWP Daily CVP Daily Combined Season Combined Daily 

Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag In C

DATE Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated

Salvage Salvage Salvage Salvage Salvage Salvage Salvage Salvage Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss

1-Feb-07 0 12 0 0 0 12 17 50 0 8 0 0 0 8 11 33 2,426 2-Feb-07 0000 0 0 17 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 33 2,104 3-Feb-07 0000 0 0 17 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 33 2,497 4-Feb-07 0000 0 0 17 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 33 2,084 5-Feb-07 0400 0 4 17 54 0 3 0 0 0 3 11 36 2,175 6-Feb-07 0 0 36 0 36 0 53 54 0 0 24 0 24 0 35 36 2,412 

7-Feb-07 6000 6 0 59 54 4 0 0 0 4 0 39 36 2,842 8-Feb-07 10 2 12 0 22 2 81 56 7 1 8 0 15 1 53 37 2,711 

9-Feb-07 6000 6 0 87 56 4 0 0 0 4 0 57 37 2,432 

10-Feb-07 0 0 12 12 12 12 99 68 0 0 8 8 8 8 65 45 2,463 

11-Feb-07 4 4 0 60 4 64 103 132 3 3 0 40 3 42 68 87 2,876 

12-Feb-07 0 0 0 60 0 60 103 192 0 0 0 40 0 40 68 127 2,532 

13-Feb-07 0 16 24 12 24 28 127 220 0 11 16 8 16 18 84 145 2,482 

14-Feb-07 6 0 24 48 30 48 157 268 4 0 16 32 20 32 104 177 2,368 

15-Feb-07 0 16 12 12 12 28 169 296 0 11 8 8 8 18 112 195 2,333 

16-Feb-07 0 0 12 0 12 0 181 296 0 0 8 0 8 0 119 195 2,581 

17-Feb-07 4400 4 4 185 300 3 3 0 0 3 3 122 198 2,333 

18-Feb-07 0 0 24 0 24 0 209 300 0 0 16 0 16 0 138 198 2,404 

19-Feb-07 8 2 24 0 32 2 241 302 5 1 16 0 21 1 159 199 2,944 

20-Feb-07 15 0 16 12 31 12 272 314 10 0 11 8 20 8 180 207 2,432 21-Feb-07 8200 8 2 280 316 5 1 0 0 5 1 185 209 2,429 

22-Feb-07 2 2 24 24 26 26 306 342 1 1 16 16 17 17 202 226 3,421 

23-Feb-07 6 16 12 0 18 16 324 358 4 11 8 0 12 11 214 236 3,652 

24-Feb-07 4 0 48 0 52 0 376 358 3 0 32 0 34 0 248 236 2,428 

25-Feb-07 8 8 60 12 68 20 444 378 5 5 40 8 45 13 293 249 2,169 

26-Feb-07 2 22 60 12 62 34 506 412 1 15 40 8 41 22 334 272 2,409 

27-Feb-07 9 10 24 0 33 10 539 422 6 7 16 0 22 7 356 279 1,754 

28-Feb-07 0 24 48 12 48 36 587 458 0 16 32 8 32 24 387 302 2,679 

Total 98 144 472 276 570 420 587 458 65 95 312 182 376 277 387 302 70,371 12

Banks Tr
#### In re Estate of Charles Swan. Charlotte Bemenderfer, appellant, v. J. O. Walker, Executor, appellee.

Filed November 19, 1908.

No. 15,389.

Wills: Probate: Review. Where an appeal is taken to the district court from an order of the county court correcting an order admitting a will to probate, and the district court in disposing of said proceedings considers evidence and passes upon an issue of fact, its order and judgment concerning said issue will not be reviewed in this court, in the absence of a motion for a new trial in the district court.

Appeal from the district court for Fillmore county: Leslie G. Hurd, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*Charles E. Sloan*and *Frank W. Sloan,*for appellant.

*S. W. Christy, L. E. Cottle, M. S. Cray*and *F. B. Donisthorpe, contra.*

Root, C.

Appeal from a judgment of the district court for Fillmore county confirming an order of the county court correcting the record of the probate of the last will and testament of Charles A. Swan, deceased. Charlotte Bemen*743derfer, an heir of the deceased and a legatee under his will, appeals.

The only question presented in the brief of counsel for the appellant is that the. evidence is not sufficient to sustain the findings and order of the district or the county court. A motion for a new trial was not filed in the district court, and therefore the sufficiency of the evidence is not before us for review. *Wollam v. Brandt & Shipman,*56 Neb. 527; *Whalen v. Kitchen,*61 Neb. 329; *Carmack v. Erdenberger,*77 Neb. 592.

It follows necessarily that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed, and we so recommend.

Fawcett and Calkins, CC., concur.

By the Court: For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, the judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4582 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4582

 To exclude striped bass from the anadromous fish doubling requirement 
 in section 3406(b)(1) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 23, 2016

  Mr. Denham introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To exclude striped bass from the anadromous fish doubling requirement 
 in section 3406(b)(1) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, 
                        and for other purposes.

    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 ``Save Our Salmon Act'' or the ``SOS 
Act''.

SEC. 2. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
            (1) California is home to many populations of native salmon 
        and steelhead.
            (2) Many of the native salmon and steelhead populations in 
        California are listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
            (3) The Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) 
        required a doubling of natural production of Central Valley 
        populations of anadromous fish within 10 years.
            (4) Striped bass are anadromous fish indigenous to the East 
        Coast of the United States and are not native to the State of 
        California.
            (5) Striped bass were included in the CVPIA's fish doubling 
        goal even though they are not a native species.
            (6) Striped bass prey on native salmon and steelhead.
            (7) Predation poses a serious threat to federally protected 
        juvenile salmon and other native fish in California.
            (8) According to the National Marine Fisheries Service, 
        reducing abundance of striped bass and other non-native 
        predators must be achieved to prevent extinction of Central 
        Valley salmon and steelhead or to prevent the species from 
        declining irreversibly.
            (9) Therefore, the CVPIA's fish-doubling goal for two 
        competing species is contradictory and counterproductive for 
        salmon and steelhead recovery.

SEC. 3. TREATMENT OF STRIPED BASS.

    Section 3406(b)(1) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 
(title XXXIV of Public Law 102-575) is amended by inserting ``(except 
striped bass)'' after ``natural production of anadromous fish''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 218.27 Vacation pay. ( a ) *From railroad employer.* Vacation pay may be credited to the vacation period due the employee or to the last day of actual work for the railroad employer. If the vacation pay is credited to the vacation period, the annuity can begin no earlier than the day after the vacation period ends. (Part 211 of this chapter discusses how vacation pay is credited as compensation.)
( b ) *From non-railroad employer.* Vacation pay will not affect the annuity beginning date.
### §4310. Privileges and immunities

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit the authority of the United States to carry out its international obligations, or to supersede or limit immunities otherwise available by law. No act or omission by any foreign mission, public international organization, or official mission to such an organization, in compliance with this chapter shall be deemed to be an implied waiver of any immunity otherwise provided for by law.

(Aug. 1, 1956, ch. 841, title II, §210, as added Pub. L. 97–241, title II, §202(b), Aug. 24, 1982, 96 Stat. 290.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1982, see section 204 of Pub. L. 97–241, set out as a note under section 4301 of this title.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsEffect of Gravity on Surface TensionSpectroscopic measurements of liquid-vapor interfaces are made in +/- 1-g environments to note the effect of gravity on surface tension. A slight increase is detected at -1-g0, but is arguably within the uncertainty of the measurement technique. An increased dependence of surface tension on the orientation and magnitude of the gravitational vector is anticipated as the critical point is approached.Document ID19980235567Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsWeislogel, M. M.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Azzam, M. O. J.*(Case Western Reserve Univ. Cleveland, OH United States)*Mann, J. A.*(Case Western Reserve Univ. Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateAugust 1, 1998Subject CategoryFluid Mechanics And Heat TransferReport/Patent NumberE-11189NASA/TM-1998-207915NAS 1.15:207915Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP  962-24-00Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19980235567.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17E0061. SCOTT FABRICIUS v. MARILYN WATTS.

Scott Fabricius’ Emergency Motion for Extension of Time to File Application

for Discretionary Appeal is herein DENIED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

June 23, 2017

06/23/2017
#### Daniel O’NEILL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James JANECKA, Warden; Attorney General for the State of New Mexico, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 05-2213.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Feb. 10, 2006.

Daniel O’Neill, Hobbs, NM, pro se.

Patricia A Madrid, Arthur W. Pepin, Office of the Attorney General State of New Mexico, Santa Fe, NM, for Respondents-Appellees.

Before HENRY, McKAY, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.

Mr. O’Neill is currently serving a thirty-three year sentence in New Mexico state prison to be followed by two years parole. In his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, he alleges ineffective assistance of counsel and that the state failed to properly consider his post-conviction motions. The magistrate judge recommended to the district court that Mr. O’Neill’s petition be dismissed due to failure to exhaust the available state law remedies and because the petition was time-barred. Mr. O’Neill failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and the district court adopted the recommendation and dismissed Mr. O’Neill’s petition. The district court also denied Mr. O’Neill’s request for a certificate of appeal-ability. Mr. O’Neill now appeals that dismissal to this court.

In an August 11, 2005 order from this court, we requested that in his appellate brief Mr. O’Neill discuss whether he had waived his right to appeal his petition’s dismissal when he failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Mr. *264O’Neill did not explain his failure to timely object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. That failure to object to the magistrate’s recommendation now bars him from seeking appellate review of the district court’s dismissal. *See Sealock v. Colorado,*218 F.3d 1205, 1209 (10th Cir. 2000).

To grant a certificate of appealability, Petitioner must make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (1994). To meet this burden, Petitioner must demonstrate “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000) (quotation omitted).

We have carefully reviewed Mr. O’Neill’s brief, the district court’s disposition, the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and the record on appeal. Nothing in the facts, the record on appeal, or Mr. O’Neill’s filing raises an issue which meets our standard for the grant of a certificate of appealability. For substantially the same reasons set forth by the magistrate judge and adopted by the district court in its Order and Judgment of June 20, 2005, we cannot say “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner.” *Id.*

We DENY Mr. O’Neill’s request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 6012

JAMAAD D. THOMAS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN OF BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION , Respondent

- Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Orangeburg

. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 5:20

- cv - 03834

- HMH )

Submitted : March 24, 2022 Decided: March 29, 2022

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Jamaad D. Thomas , Appellant Pro Se

.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Jamaad D. Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s order ac cepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Thomas’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable juri sts c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must
demonstrate both that the dis positive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thomas has not made the requisite showing. * Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions ar e

* The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v

. Duffy , 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 846

- 47 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 , 154

- 55 (1985). The magistrate judge found that one of Thomas’ claims, that plea counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to adequate ly investigate and prepare his case, was procedurally defaulted. Thomas has waived appellate review of this claim by failing t o object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper notice.3 adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
### §31. Repealed. Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, §53, 70A Stat. 641

Section, act Jan. 19, 1929, ch. 85, 45 Stat. 1090, related to care of naval patients in other Government hospitals where naval hospital facilities are not available. See section 6201 of Title 10, Armed Forces.
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO




18 U.S.C.
§ 1350,




AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of RF Industries, Ltd. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Howard F. Hill, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, 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
my 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.




Date:
      March  11, 2010
              /s/ Howard F. HillHoward
      F. HillChief
      Executive Officer
Table 23

U. S. Department of Interior - Bureau of Reclamation

Central Valley Operations Office

Preliminary Data Subject to Change Madera Canal and Millerton Lake

2017

Monthly Deliveries in AF

Water Users Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total

MADERA CANAL

Chowchilla WD 4364 0 0 13533 28481 29860 30127 25935 20995 1070 0 0 154365

Madera ID 1380 0 2250 7177 20021 25,545 27,753 21,128 15327 21803 5639 0 148023

Soquel (Madera non-proj.) 2720 1573 2915 2822 1689 2312 717 0 0 0 0 0 14748

Total 8464 1573 5165 23532 50191 57717 58597 47063 36322 22873 5639 0 317136

MILLERTON LAKE

County of Madera 1 6 2 13 1 3 4 4 4 3 3 2 46

Fresno County Wks #18 5 4 5 7 11 14 20 16 16 16 8 6 128

Gravelly Ford WD 0 2459 2062 2027 2375 2269 1233 0 0 0 0 0 12425

.

Total 6 2469 2069 2047 2387 2286 1257 20 20 19 11 8 12599

Notes: Data provided by South-Central California Area Office-Fresno

 Delivery data is based on District turn-out readings and may include water in addition to water service contract deliveries.