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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The
undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Vice President and Cashier of Communitycorp (the Company), each certify that, to his or her knowledge on the date of this certification:



| | 1. | The quarterly report of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (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: August 11, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ W. Roger Crook                   
|                      |  |    
|                      |  |     |  | W. Roger Crook                       
|                      |  |    
|                      |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                      |  |    
|Date: August 11, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Gwendolyn P. Bunton              
|                      |  |    
|                      |  |     |  | Gwendolyn P. Bunton                  
|                      |  |    
|                      |  |     |  | Vice President and Cashier
### §4637. Repealed. Pub. L. 100–17, title IV, §415, Apr. 2, 1987, 101 Stat. 255

Section, Pub. L. 91–646, title II, §217, Jan. 2, 1971, 84 Stat. 1902, related to displacement by code enforcement, rehabilitation, and demolition programs receiving Federal assistance.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective on effective date provided in regulations promulgated under section 4633 of this title (as amended by section 412 of Pub. L. 100–17), but not later than 2 years after Apr. 2, 1987, see section 418 of Pub. L. 100–17, set out as an Effective Date of 1987 Amendment note under section 4601 of this title.
,£813 2013 Aw\Mo 

C(: RA j(}JfA-I~A 

Dave Heineman 

Governor 

Mr. Karl Brooks 

Regional Administrator 

U.S. EPA, Region VII 

11201 Renner Blvd. 

Lenexa, KS 66219 

Dear Mr. Brooks: 

February 5, 2013 

STATE OF NEBRASKA 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Michael J. Linder 

Director 

Suite 400, The Atrium 

1200 'N' Street 

P.O. Box 98922 

Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-8922 

Phone(402)471-2186 

FAX (402) 471-2909 

website: www.deq.state.ne.us 

On Aprill, 2012, the enclosed chapters were amended in Title 129 of the Nebraska 

Administrative Code. The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) is submitting 

these revised chapters to update Nebraska's regulatory State Implementation Plan (SIP). 

Statutory authority for the Nebraska Environmental Quality Council and the Governor of 

Nebraska to adopt these rules is contained in the Nebraska Environmental Protection Act, 

sections 81-1501 to 81-1532 ofthe Revised Statutes of Nebraska. The NDEQ is requesting 

review and approval by for the following amended chapters of Title 129: 

Chapter 1: Definitions 

Chapter 17: Construction Permits- When Required 

Chapter 19: Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality 

Chapter 27: Hazardous Air Pollutants; Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

The NDEQ requests that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) amend Nebraska's SIP 

to replace current rules in the SIP with the amended rules as submitted, to the extent that they 

are deemed approvable. NDEQ additionally requests that the EPA amend the Nebraska Title V 

Plan to include these changes, as applicable. 

Enclosed are paper copies of all documents required for determination of plan completeness 

per 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V. Also enclosed is a CD containing electronic files which are 

exact duplicates of the paper documents being submitted. 

An Equal OpportunitJIAfjirmatiue Action Employer 

". Printed with soy ink on recycled paper ~
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee v. Carl Bennett ACQUAYE, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-20637

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 25, 2007.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Edmond O’Suji, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Carl Bennett Acquaye, Mcrae, GA, pro se.

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Counsel appointed for Carl Bennett Ac-quaye has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of counsel’s brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY JEROME WOMACK,

Petitioner,

v.

J. WALKER, Warden,

  Respondent.______________________________

))))))))))

No. C 08-3594 MMC (PR)

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’SMOTION TO AMEND TRAVERSE ;DENYING MOTION FOREXPEDITED RULING

(Docket Nos. 14 & 16)

Good cause appearing, petitioner’s motion to amend the traverse is hereby

GRANTED.  The Clerk shall docket the motion (Docket No. 14) as an amendment to the

traverse. 

Petitioner’s motion for an expedited ruling on the merits of his habeas corpus petition

is hereby DENIED.  The Court will rule on the petition after thoroughly reviewing the

arguments and evidence in support of and in opposition thereto.    

This order terminates Docket Nos. 14 and 16.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 9, 2010  _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEYUnited States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-03594-MMC   Document 17   Filed 08/09/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-13T05:55:32-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
#### § 518.3 Effect on other issuances.

For awards subject to this part, all administrative requirements of codified program regulations, program manuals, handbooks and other non-regulatory materials which are inconsistent with the requirements of this part shall be superseded, except to the extent they are required by statute, or authorized in accordance with the deviations provision in § 518.4.
#### § 3a.5 Basis for approval or disapproval.

Decisions by the Director, Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs, under this part shall be based on whether the applicant's proposed employment with a foreign government would adversely affect the foreign relations of the United States, in light of the applicant's official status as a retiree or reservist.
~d

| 4
aa
|

Rawlins ony Medicine Bow

62 _R6IW 6

sees Continental Divide National Scenic Trail a a — $e
LC] Rawlins OHV Kilometers
0 5 10 20 30 40 50
SS ——————
Miles
Map 2-15

Special Recreation Management Areas
Alternative 2

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM
Editorial Note on Part 706
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 706 appear at 84 FR 37751, Aug. 2, 2019.

§ 706.34 Administrative appeals. ( a ) *Requirements for making an appeal.* A requester may appeal any adverse determinations to DFC's Vice President and General Counsel at *foia@dfc.gov* or 1100 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20527. Examples of adverse determinations are provided in Section 706.06(c) of this subpart. The requester must make the appeal in writing and it must be postmarked, or in the case of electronic submissions, transmitted, within ninety calendar days after the date of the response. The appeal should clearly identify DFC's determination that is being appealed and the assigned request number. The requester should mark both the appeal letter and envelope, or subject line of the electronic transmission, “Freedom of Information Act Appeal.”
( b ) *Adjudication of appeals.* DFC's Vice President and General Counsel or his/her designee will render a written decision within twenty working days after the date of DFC's receipt of the appeal, unless an extension of up to ten working days is deemed necessary due to unusual circumstances. The requester will be notified in writing of any extension.
( c ) *Decisions on appeals.* A decision that upholds the initial determination will contain a written statement that identifies the reasons for the affirmance, including any FOIA exemptions applied, and will provide the requester with notification of the statutory right to file a lawsuit and the ability to request dispute resolution from the Office of Government Information Services. If an initial determination is remanded or modified on appeal the requester will be notified in writing. DFC's FOIA Office will then process the request in accordance with that appeal determination and respond directly to the requester. If an appeal is granted in whole or in part, the information will be made available promptly, provided the requirements of Section 706.23 regarding payment of fees are satisfied.
( d ) *Engaging in dispute resolution services provided by OGIS.* Dispute resolution is a voluntary process. If DFC agrees to participate in the dispute resolution services provided by OGIS, it will actively engage as a partner to the process in an attempt to resolve the dispute.
( e ) *When appeal is required.* Before seeking court review, a requester generally must first submit a timely administrative appeal.
[82 FR 20434, May 2, 2017, as amended at 84 FR 37752, Aug. 2, 2019]
Stipulation and Order 

Pollar v. County of Alameda, et al. 

(Case No. 08-04196 BZ)

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

ROBERT R. POWELL, ESQ. CSB#159747 

DENNIS R. INGOLS, ESQ. CSB#236458 

LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT R. POWELL

925 West Hedding Street 

San José, California 95126 

T: 408-553-0200 F: 408-553-0203 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

DANIELLE POLLAR, SHALAWN POLLAR 

as Guardian Ad Litem for J.A., a minor 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DANIELLE POLLAR, SHALAWN ) Case No. 08-04196 BZ 

POLLAR as Guardian Ad Litem for J.A., ) 

a minor, ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) STIPULATION AND PROPOSED 

vs. ) ORDER RE: INCREASED PAGE 

 ) LIMIT FOR PLAINTIFFS’ 

 ) OPPOSITION TO COUNTY 

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, ) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

Mary Takeuchi, Dale Billiter, Michael Yee ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

CITY OF HAYWARD, Sam Sander, ) 

Mike Edwards, and ) 

 DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, ) 

 ) 

Defendants. ) 

_____ ) 

The parties hereto, by and through their respective counsel, do hereby stipulate and agree 

as set forth below and request this court order same: 

1. Plaintiffs may file a brief up to 29 pages in Opposition to the County Defendants’ 

Motion for Summary Judgment which is filed and currently pending. 

2. County Defendants may file a Reply brief up to 4 pages longer than the default limit as 

Case 3:08-cv-04196-BZ Document 90 Filed 02/23/10 Page 1 of 2
Stipulation and Order 

Pollar v. County of Alameda, et al. 

(Case No. 08-04196 BZ)

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 provided for by the Local Rules.1

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: 2/22/10 ___/S/ Robert R. Powell_______ 

 ROBERT R. POWELL, ESQ. 

 Attorney for Plaintiffs 

Dated: 2/22/10 __ /S/ Rebecca Widen_________ 

 REBECCA WIDEN, ESQ. 

 Attorney for County of Alameda, and 

 Individually Named Defendant 

 Employees of the County of Alameda 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Based on the foregoing stipulation, and good cause appearing therefore, the 

Court hereby adopts the stipulation of the parties and orders as follows: 

1. Plaintiffs may file a brief up to 29 pages in Opposition to the County Defendants’ 

Motion for Summary Judgment which is filed and currently pending. 

2. County Defendants may file a Reply brief up to 4 pages longer than the default limit as 

 provided for by the Local Rules. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: 2/____/2010 _______________________________ 

 JUDGE BERNARD ZIMMERMAN 

 U.S.D.C NORTHERN DISTRICT 

 CALIFORNIA – San Francisco 

 

 

1 City Defendants’ counsel, Patrick Co, was contacted by e-mail regarding this stipulation, mostly for posterity 

sake, as the requested relief does not effect his clients. He did not respond, so the stipulation was filed without 

his approval. Plaintiffs’ counsel apologizes if the court disagrees with this approach. 

23

Case 3:08-cv-04196-BZ Document 90 Filed 02/23/10 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William J. Marshall, Appellant.

[834 NYS2d 361]—

Mugglin, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Essex County (Halloran, J.), rendered December 16, 2003, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of illegal possession of a vehicle identification number (four counts), forgery of a vehicle identification number (three counts) and offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (three counts).

Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of four counts of illegal possession of a vehicle identification number, three counts of forgery of a vehicle identification number and three counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree. Thereafter, defendant was sentenced to concurrent sentences of 90 days of incarceration with five years probation for each count, together with the required fee for crime victim assistance and surcharges. This appeal from the judgment of conviction ensued.

Defendant’s single argument—that each of the guilty verdicts was contrary to the weight of the credible evidence—is premised upon his conclusory assertion that the verdicts are supported by nothing but base conjecture. Analyzing the trial evidence in a neutral light (see *People v Gilliam,*36 AD3d 1151, 1152 [2007]; *People v Zabala,*290 AD2d 578, 579 [2002], *lv denied*97 NY2d 735 [2002]) and according the required deference to the jury’s credibility assessments, we conclude that the verdicts were not contrary to the weight of the credible evidence (see *People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]; *People v Odom,*36 AD3d 1027, 1029 [2007]). The extensive investigation of defendant and his business by the Auto Theft Unit of the Department of Motor Vehicles revealed that defendant had engaged in a pattern of repairing and restoring stolen vehicles, affixing fraudulent vehicle identification numbers thereto and registering them with the Department of Motor Vehicles as completely different *968vehicles. As a result of this investigation, a search warrant was obtained for defendant’s business premises resulting in a search which produced the location and seizure of a number of stolen vehicles, assorted vehicle identification number plates and related items. Moreover, defendant gave an extensive written statement to a State Police investigator that detailed how he would remove vehicle identification numbers from one vehicle, attach them to a different vehicle and then knowingly register that vehicle with false information and a false vehicle identification number affixed. Defendant candidly admitted preparing false documentation in order to obtain vehicle registrations. Under these circumstances, the record contains significant direct evidence of defendant’s guilt, relieving the jury of the necessity to make or rely upon inferences that could be drawn from the evidence.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Spain and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
#### § 16.9 Records.

All official records concerning agency consideration of grievances, except those appropriate to implementation of decisions favorable to grievants, shall be kept separate from the official personnel record of the grievant and any other individuals connected with the grievance, and shall not be accessible to agency personnel other than the grievant, the grievant's representative, and those responsible for consideration of grievances.
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

BMG MUSIC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

VANESSA CLAYTON,

Defendant in propia persona.

_____________________________________/

No. C 08-3148 JSW

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR

PLAINTIFF BMG MUSIC’S CLIENT

REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND

THE MEDIATION

TELEPHONICALLY

Date: July 27, 2010

Mediator: Margaret Corrigan

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the request for plaintiff BMG Music’s client representative,

Matthew Oppenheimer, to be excused from personally attending the July 27, 2010 mediation session

before Margaret Corrigan is GRANTED. Mr. Oppenheimer shall be available to participate

telephonically at all times in accordance with ADR L.R. 6-10(f).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

July 19, 2010 By:

Dated Elizabeth D. Laporte

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-03148-JSW Document 59 Filed 07/19/10 Page 1 of 1
oCI*‘D c. MINtI 

mOun .all- 

_ 

, 

. 

OFFICE OF i-HE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

&larch 29$ 1839 
Air. Charles B. f3laughter, Marah 20, 1939, Page 8 

independent dletriat In same or adjoining oountles. 

Reply to your second queetion: 

We find no praoleion In the,st.atutee allowing 

the coneolidatlon of a rurel hkgb school dietriot In 

one aaunty rith 8x1 independent sahool distriat in umther 

aoun~y. Artiole 2922aa R. C. S. provides for the oeneolldation of a rural high eahool distriat rlth a aanflguouo 

cormon school distriat, but daee not extend ta dirtriots 

1yS.q in different aaunties. Article 2742b I+. 6b 19 

-the only provls%on In the statutes with respeat to OOPaolidation of 8ahool die&riots lying In ditferent aam- 

~08, and whooa di~triata in diiiaraat aounticn, ia 0Mvlr 

tobeooneolidMed, waldlmv8fobeth~~ethereirr~~ 

out. 

aeliaY* that thla ulavors your qusaflon; 'W . 

ara
§ 19.5-3 Residence of spouse during service at unhealthful post. ( a ) The calculation of the pro rata share of benefits for a former spouse, and the determination of whether a person qualifies as a “former spouse” depends on the length of the marriage. The latter, under the definition in the Act and when the principal has received extra service credit for an assignment to an unhealthful post, depends upon whether a spouse has resided with the principal at the unhealthful post. In order to determine residency for this purpose, whenever a married participant is assigned to an unhealthful post for which he/she *does not* receive post differential and *does* receive or request extra service credit, the participant shall report on Form OF-140, Election to Receive Extra Service Credit Towards Retirement, whether his/her spouse is or is not residing at the post. Although a chief of mission is not required to submit Form OF-140 in order to receive extra credit for service at an unhealthful post, he/she must nevertheless submit this form if the chief of mission has a spouse that does not accompany him/her at post for the entire assignment. Both the participant and spouse shall sign the completed form. If there is a change in residence of the spouse during the assignment, a new joint Form OF-140 shall be filed to report the change.
( b ) Whenever a participant retires or becomes divorced, or whenever a former participant becomes divorced who has extra service credit for assignment at unhealthful posts completed prior to the issuance of this regulation who was married during at least a portion of the assignment, the participant or former participant shall submit a statement to PER/ER/RET reporting on whether his/her spouse resided at the unhealthful post and the dates of such residence. The statement shall be signed by the principal and his/her spouse or former spouse whenever possible.
( c ) In the event of a disagreement between a principal and his/her spouse or former spouse concerning residency at an unhealthful post, or the submission of a report or statement by a principal showing a period of nonresidence at a post by a spouse which is not signed by the spouse, the determination of residence will be made by PER/ER/RET and based on records in the Department of payments for travel and allowances plus any other evidence that can be adduced. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the assumption will be made that the spouse resided at the post.
§ 308.8 Rules of conduct. ( a ) The head of the agency shall assure that all persons involved in the design, development, operation or maintenance of any systems of records as defined herein are informed of all requirements necessary to protect the privacy of individuals who are the subject of such records. All employees shall be informed of all implications of the Act in this area including the criminal penalties provided under the Act, and the fact the agency may be subject to civil suit for failure to comply with the provisions of the Privacy Act and these regulations.
( b ) The head of the agency shall also ensure that all personnel having access to records receive adequate training in the protection of the security of personal records and that adequate and proper storage is provided for all such records with sufficient security to assure the privacy of such records.
§ 146.215 Membership practices of certain organizations. ( a ) *Social fraternities and sororities.* These Title IX regulations do not apply to the membership practices of social fraternities and sororities that are exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C. 501(a), the active membership of which consists primarily of students in attendance at institutions of higher education.
( b ) *YMCA, YWCA, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, and Camp Fire Girls.* These Title IX regulations do not apply to the membership practices of the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA), the Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA), the Girl Scouts, the Boy Scouts, and Camp Fire Girls.
( c ) *Voluntary youth service organizations.* These Title IX regulations do not apply to the membership practices of a voluntary youth service organization that is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C. 501(a), and the membership of which has been traditionally limited to members of one sex and principally to persons of less than nineteen years of age.