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

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection
with this Quarterly Report of Brightec, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Patrick Planche,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge,
that:

|    |                                                                                                                                                        
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(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/ Patrick
  Planche                                            
| |                                                                  
| | Patrick
  Planche, President, Chief Executive                    
| | Officer,
  Treasurer, Director Chief Financial Officer, Principal
| | Executive
  Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting       
| | Officer                                                          
| | May 15, 2009                                                     

E-2

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         Independent Auditors' Consent
                         -----------------------------

The Board of Directors
North Arkansas Bancshares, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-35985) on Form S-8 of North Arkansas Bancshares, Inc. of our report dated
August 7, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheet of North Arkansas
Bancshares, Inc. and subsidiary as of June 30, 1998, and the related
consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity, and cash
flows for the year then ended, which report appears in the June 30, 1999 annual
report on Form 10-KSB of North Arkansas Bancshares, Inc.

                                             /s/ KPMG LLP


Little Rock, Arkansas
September 28, 1999
#### § 5463.1 Time for cutting and removal.

Time for cutting and removal of timber or other vegetative resources sold shall not exceed a period of forty-eight months such time for cutting and removal may be extended as provided in 43 CFR part 5470, subpart 5473.

[85 FR 82375, Dec. 18, 2020]
Editorial Note on Part 134
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at 72 FR 50042, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 134.605 Under what circumstances are fees and expenses reimbursable? ( a ) If you are a prevailing eligible party, you may receive an award for reasonable fees and expenses unless the position of the agency in the proceeding is found by the ALJ to be “substantially justified”, or special circumstances exist which make an award unjust. The “position of the agency” includes not only the position taken by SBA in the administrative proceeding, but also the position which it took in the action which led to the administrative proceeding. No presumption arises that SBA's position was not substantially justified simply because it did not prevail in a proceeding. However, upon your assertion that the position of SBA was not substantially justified, SBA will be required to establish that its position was reasonable in fact and law.
( b ) The ALJ may reduce or deny an award for reimbursement if you have unreasonably protracted the administrative proceeding or if other special circumstances would make the award unjust.
( c ) Awards for fees and expenses incurred before the date on which an administrative proceeding was initiated are allowable only if you can demonstrate that they were reasonably incurred in preparation for the proceeding.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO.: 1:20-cv-22638-FAM 

JESUS GONZALEZ, an individual, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CRP/INSITE CLIPPER, LLC d/b/a 

B OCEAN RESORT, 

Defendant. 

_____________________________________/ 

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

Plaintiff, JESUS GONZALEZ, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby notifies the Court that 

it is dismissing this matter with prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). 

Respectfully submitted, 

By: s/Nolan Klein 

Nolan Klein, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 647977 

E-mail: klein@nklegal.com 

LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN 

5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 

Boca Raton, FL 33431 

Telephone: (954) 745-0588

Case 1:20-cv-22638-FAM Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2020 Page 1 of 1
### §3701. Definitions

For purposes of this chapter—

(1) the term "amateur sports organization" means—

(A) a person or governmental entity that sponsors, organizes, schedules, or conducts a competitive game in which one or more amateur athletes participate, or

(B) a league or association of persons or governmental entities described in subparagraph (A),

(2) the term "governmental entity" means a State, a political subdivision of a State, or an entity or organization, including an entity or organization described in section 4(5) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703(5)), that has governmental authority within the territorial boundaries of the United States, including on lands described in section 4(4) of such Act (25 U.S.C. 2703(4)),

(3) the term "professional sports organization" means—

(A) a person or governmental entity that sponsors, organizes, schedules, or conducts a competitive game in which one or more professional athletes participate, or

(B) a league or association of persons or governmental entities described in subparagraph (A),

(4) the term "person" has the meaning given such term in section 1 of title 1, and

(5) the term "State" means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, or any territory or possession of the United States.

(Added Pub. L. 102–559, §2(a), Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 4227.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Constitutionality

For information regarding the constitutionality of certain provisions of this chapter, see the Table of Laws Held Unconstitutional in Whole or in Part by the Supreme Court on the Constitution Annotated website, constitution.congress.gov.

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 102–559, §3, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 4229, provided that: "This Act [enacting this chapter and provisions set out as a note under section 1 of this title] shall take effect on January 1, 1993."
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Drug Enforcement Administration 

                    By Notice dated March 29, 2004, and published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on April 29, 2004, (69 FR 23537-23538), Cody Laboratories, Inc., 601 Yellowstone Avenue, Cody, Wyoming 82414, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of Cocaine (9041), a basic class of controlled substance in Schedule II.                 

The company plans to manufacture the product in bulk to distribute to its customers. 

No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Cody Laboratories, Inc. to manufacture the basic class of controlled substance listed is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Cody Laboratories, Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. 

Dated: September 28, 2004. 

William J. Walker, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration. 

[FR Doc. 04-23055 Filed 10-13-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
### §457. Records; obsolete papers

The records of district courts and of courts of appeals shall be kept at one or more of the places where court is held. Such places shall be designated by the respective courts except when otherwise directed by the judicial council of the circuit.

Papers of any court established by Act of Congress which have become obsolete and are no longer necessary or useful, may be disposed of with the approval of the court concerned in the manner provided by sections 366–380 of Title 44 and in accordance with the rules of the Judicial Conference of the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 908; Pub. L. 95–598, title II, §216, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2661.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§10, 523a, 523b, (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §6, 36 Stat. 1088; June 3, 1930, ch. 396, §§1, 2, 46 Stat. 496).

Section consolidates and simplifies sections 10, 523a and 523b of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., relating to filing district court records and destroying obsolete papers and bankruptcy proofs of claims.

The revised section enlarges scope of section 10 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., to include places of keeping records of courts of appeals which was not covered by existing law.

The provisions in section 10 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., that where court is held "at more than one place" and the place of keeping the records "is not specially provided by law, they shall be kept at either of the places" designated by the court, was changed to permit the judicial councils of the circuits to make the determination without requiring special enactment of Congress. See section 332 of this title as to purpose and duties of the judicial councils.

The provision of section 523a of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., authorizing destruction of records by the Attorney General was rewritten in the second paragraph to give such authority, respecting court records, to the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. Such Director, under section 604 of this title, now exercises administrative authority over clerks and commissioners.

A similar provision with respect to records of United States attorneys and marshals was omitted as superseded by sections 366 and 380 of title 44, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Public Printing and Documents, which prescribe the exclusive method for disposition of such papers.

Substantial changes were made in phraseology and arrangement.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Sections 366–380 of Title 44, referred to in text, were repealed and the provisions thereof reenacted as chapter 33 (§3301 et seq.) of Title 44, Public Printing and Documents, by Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1238.

#### Amendments

1978—Pub. L. 95–598 directed the amendment of section by inserting "of bankruptcy courts," after "The record", which amendment did not become effective pursuant to section 402(b) of Pub. L. 95–598, as amended, set out as an Effective Date note preceding section 101 of Title 11, Bankruptcy.
20-mj-3090-LouisCase 1:20-mj-03090-LFL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2020 Page 1 of 8Case 1:20-mj-03090-LFL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2020 Page 2 of 8Case 1:20-mj-03090-LFL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2020 Page 3 of 8Case 1:20-mj-03090-LFL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2020 Page 4 of 8Case 1:20-mj-03090-LFL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2020 Page 5 of 8Case 1:20-mj-03090-LFL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2020 Page 6 of 8Case 1:20-mj-03090-LFL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2020 Page 7 of 8Case 1:20-mj-03090-LFL Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2020 Page 8 of 8
#### STATE, Respondent, v. VAN EREM, Appellant.

(195 N. W. 500.)

(File No. 5224.

Opinion filed October 26, 1923.)

Intoxicating liquors — Criminal Law — Evidence Held to Sustain Conviction for Sale.

Evidence held sufficient to .sustain a conviction for unlawful sale.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Roberts County; HoN. B. A. WautoN, Judge.

■William Van Erem was convicted of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor. Frorn^ the judgment and an order denying a new trial, he appeals.

Judgment and order affirmed.

*Babcock & Babcock,*of Sisseton, for Appellant.

*Byron S. Payne,*Attorney General, and *Ray F. Drevcry,*Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

DILLON, J.

Information charging the defendant with the

unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors to one Ole P. Brunstuen, at Summit, this state. It appears that the defendant came to the Brunstuen store to do some trading. Brunstuen asked Van Erem if he could find some liquor, to cure a cold. Defendant replied he had none, and1 did not know just where there was any. Then Brunstuen asked him- if he did not think he could find somebody that had liquor; that he was sick and needed it. Defendant said he would look around and see if he could find anybody that had some, and, if he located any he was to leave it right in the corner in the back part of the store near the- desk. Eater Brunstuen found a pint 'bottle of intoxicating liquor at the place designated and drank it. Defendant did not ask for any pay for it, but Brunstuen had an account of about $2 charged against defendant on a slip. When Brunstuen found the liquor, he tore up the slip and told the defendant he found it all right. Defendant said, “All right.” Brunstuen did not see the defendant leave the liquor in the corner, and did not know who left it there; but he thought the defendant brought it, because he was the one that 'was asked to look around to find some liquor. Defendant’s wife testified that she was in the store on the occasion that Brunstuen testified to, and heard them talking about some liquor; she heard them mention a man by the name of Peterson, who possessed ro"”c liquor.

*620While no one testified to seeing, the delivery of the liquor, yet we think the jury was justified in reaching the conclusion that there was an understanding between the parties that the defendant should place or cause to place the liquor in the place agreed upon. W'e are satisfied that defendant has had a fair trial, and fail to find any prejudicial error in .the admission of evidence or the instructions given by the court. In support of this conclusion we cite Commonwealth v. Stone, 165 Ky. 336, 176 S. W. 1138; Combs v. Commonwealth, 162 Ky. 86, 172 S. W. 101; Bragg v. State, 23 Ga. App. 138, 99 S. E. 310.

Order denying motion for a new trial and judgment is affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 195 N. W. 500. See, Headnote, American Key-Numbered Digest, Intoxicating liquors, Keyi-No. 236(11), 23 Cyc. 267.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         142,567
<SECURITIES>                                18,545,575
<RECEIVABLES>                                  434,505
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,188
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,123,835
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          428,945
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,694,890
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,123,835
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               252,748
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,432
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                221,316
<INCOME-TAX>                                   221,316
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            221,316
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   221,316
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
§ 4.832 Consultation and advice. ( a ) The administrative law judge shall not consult any person, or party, on any fact in issue or on the merits of the matter before him unless upon notice and opportunity for all parties to participate.
( b ) No employee or agent of the Federal Government engaged in the investigation and prosecution of a proceeding governed by these rules shall participate or advise in the rendering of any recommended or final decision, except as witness or counsel in the proceeding.
[38 FR 21162, Aug. 6, 1973, as amended at 50 FR 43706, Oct. 29, 1985]
§ 108.1940 Procedures for designation of additional Low-Income Geographic Areas ( a ) *General.* On its own initiative or upon written request by a Person which addresses the relevant factor(s) set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, SBA may consider whether to designate additional census tracts (or equivalent county divisions) as LI Areas.
( b ) *Criteria.* SBA will consider one or more of the following factors in determining whether to designate a particular census tract (or equivalent county division) as an additional LI Area: ( 1 ) A substantial number of Low-Income Individuals reside in that census tract (or equivalent county division).
( 2 ) As adequately supported by studies or other analyses or reliable data, that census tract (or equivalent county division) has a pattern of unmet needs for investment capital.
( 3 ) As adequately supported by studies or other analyses or reliable data, that census tract (or equivalent county division) has indications of economic distress.
( c ) *Procedure for designation.* ( 1 ) If SBA decides to consider the designation of an additional LI Area, SBA will publish in the Federal Register a notice that it is considering such designation. SBA will advise the public that it will consider any comments supporting or opposing the designation, submitted within a specified time period.
( 2 ) In making a final decision on whether to designate a particular census tract (or equivalent county division) as an additional LI Area, SBA will consider evidence submitted by any requester, SBA's own research, any public comments submitted, and any other information deemed relevant by SBA.
( 3 ) If SBA designates a particular census tract (or equivalent county division) as an additional LI Area, SBA will publish a notice in the Federal Register and, if appropriate, will amend this part to include the additional LI Area.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of George Wesotsky, Appellant, against Storch Trucking Co. et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal by claimant from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board to the effect that it lacked jurisdiction to make an award of compensation. The board found that claimant’s employment was at a fixed location in the State of New Jersey, and that his work in the State of New York at the time of the accident was temporary and transitory in character. Also that he accepted payments directed in an award made by the Workmen’s Compensation Board of the State of New Jersey. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Hill, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Foster and Deyo, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Eugene Dwight HUNT, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-4614.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 23, 2006.

Decided March 1, 2006.

Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Eugene Dwight Hunt pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000), and was sentenced to a fifteen-year minimum sentence because he was found to be an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (West Supp.2005). On appeal, Hunt argues that the district court erred by sentencing him as an armed career criminal in violation of *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), because this judicially-imposed sentencing enhancement was neither found by a jury nor admitted by him. We affirm.

Hunt’s argument is foreclosed by two of our recent decisions. *See United States v. Thompson,*421 F.3d 278, 282-84 (4th Cir.) (holding that district court may enhance sentence based on fact of prior convictions under § 924(e) regardless of whether admitted by defendant or found by jury), *petition for cert, filed*(Oct. 25, 2005) (No. 05-7266); *United States v. Cheek,*415 F.3d 349, 352-53 (4th Cir.) (holding that the armed career criminal designation, based on prior convictions, does not violate the Sixth Amendment under Booker), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 640, 163 L.Ed.2d 518 (2005).

Accordingly, we affirm Hunt’s sentence. 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*
#### § 3213.10 Who may relinquish a lease?

Only the record title owner may relinquish a lease in full or in part. If there is more than one record title owner for a lease, all record title owners must sign the relinquishment.