alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United StatesCode)**

** **

Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) ofSection 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I, John W.Elias, Chief Executive Officer of Edge Petroleum Corporation, a Delawarecorporation (the “Company”), hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

 

(1)                                  theCompany’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:August 13, 2004 | /s/ John W.  Elias |
|-----------------------|--------------------|
|                  | Name:              | John W. Elias  Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
§ 308.12 Contents of records systems. ( a ) The agency shall maintain in any records contained in any records system hereunder only such information about an individual as is accurate, relevant, and necessary to accomplish the purpose for which the agency acquired the information as authorized by statute or executive order.
( b ) In situations in which the information may result in adverse determinations about such individual's rights, benefits and privileges under any Federal program, all information placed in records systems shall, to the greatest extent practicable, be collected from the individual to whom the record pertains.
( c ) Each form or other document which an individual is expected to complete in order to provide information for any records system shall have appended thereto, or in the body of the document: ( 1 ) An indication of the authority authorizing the solicitation of the information and whether the provision of the information is mandatory or voluntary.
( 2 ) The purpose or purposes for which the information is intended to be used.
( 3 ) Routine uses which may be made of the information and published pursuant to § 308.7 of this regulation.
( 4 ) The effect on the individual, if any, of not providing all or part of the required or requested information.
( d ) Records maintained in any system of records used by the agency to make any determination about any individual shall be maintained with such accuracy, relevancy, timeliness, and completeness as is reasonably necessary to assure fairness to the individual in the making of any determination about such individual: *Provided, however*, That the agency shall not be required to update or keep current retired records.
( e ) Before disseminating any record about an individual to any person other than an agency as defined in 5 U.S.C. 552(e) or pursuant to the provsions of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), the agency shall make reasonable efforts to assure that such records are accurate, complete, timely and relevant for agency purposes.
( f ) Under no circumstances shall the agency maintain any record about an individual with respect to or describing how such individual exercises rights guaranteed by the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity.
( g ) In the event any record is disclosed as a result of the order of a presiding judge of a court of competent jurisdiction, the agency shall make reasonable efforts to notify the individual whose record was so disclosed after the process becomes a matter of public record.
### §7301. Environmental impact statements

The transfer of functions under subchapters III and IV of this chapter shall not affect the validity of any draft environmental impact statement published before October 1, 1977.

(Pub. L. 95–91, title VII, §713, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 610.)
## U nit edSta tes C ou rt o f App eal s For t h e Firs t C ircu it

No. 06-2185 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant,
v . GARY JAMES MILO, Defendant, Appellee.

ERRATA The opinion of this Court, issued on October 30, 2007, should be amended as follows: On page 9, line 7 of first paragraph, replace "el o c ution." with "allocution.".
§ 18.10 Service of complaint and other papers. ( a ) *Complaint.* The complaint or a copy thereof may be served upon the respondent by certified mail; by delivering it to the respondent or his/her attorney or agent of record either in person; or by leaving it at the office or place of business of the respondent, attorney or agent; in any other manner which has been agreed to by the respondent; or by first-class mail in case of a person resident abroad.
( b ) *Service of papers other than complaint.* Any paper other than the complaint may be served upon a respondent as provided in paragraph (a) of this section or by mailing the paper by first-class mail to the respondent at the last address known to the Director General, or by mailing the paper by first-class mail to the respondent's attorney or agent of record. Such mailing shall constitute complete service.
( c ) Whenever the filing of a paper is required or permitted in connection with a proceeding, and the place of filing is not specified by this subpart or by rule or order of the hearing examiner, the paper shall be filed with the Director General, Department of State, Washington, DC 20520. All papers shall be filed in duplicate.
(June 23, 1960)

#### The People *of*the State of New York v. Arthur Chesler.

Motion for leave to prosecute as a poor person denied. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Stevens and Noonan, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ernest Cunningham, Appellant.

Renewed motion by appellant to dispense with printing granted. The appeal will be heard on the original papers (including the typed minutes) and on appellant’s typewritten brief, which shall include a copy of the opinion, if any, of the court below. The appellant is directed to file six copies of his typewritten brief and to serve one copy on the District Attorney. Appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged to the May Term, beginning April 24,1961; appeal ordered on the calendar for said term. Motion for assignment of counsel granted. Joseph B. Box, Jr., Esquire, 357 Larkfield Road, Bast Northport, New York, is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal. Beldock,'Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.3

                   Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350

     In connection with the filing with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission of Emergent Group Inc.'s (the "Company") Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certify that (i) in our capacities as officers of the Company,
(ii) to each of our own respective actual knowledge, and (iii) solely for the
purpose of compliance with 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, that:

     (1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of ss.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 results of operations
          of the Company.

          The above certification is given as of the date of the Report and is
     limited to the periods covered by the Report. The above certification is
     made severally and not jointly.

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Certificate on
     November 13, 2003.


                                                        By: /s/ William M. McKay
                                                            --------------------
                                                                William M. McKay
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
### §7384p. Responsibilities of Secretary of Health and Human Services

The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall carry out that Secretary's responsibilities with respect to the compensation program with the assistance of the Director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

(Pub. L. 106–398, §1 [div. C, title XXXVI, §3625], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–504.)
The HONORABLE CHARLES R. WOLLE, Chief Judge, United States Distri ct 1 Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The HONORABLE RUSSELL J. HILL, Chief Judge, United States B ankruptcy 2 Court for the Southern District of Iowa.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2963

___________ Stephen K. Thielking, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Deborah L. Petersen, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: August 27, 1998 Filed: September 2, 1998

___________ Before FAGG, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Stephen K. Thielking appeals from the district court’s order affirming th e 1 bankruptcy court’s order denying hi m a discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727 (a)(2), 2 (a)(3), and (a)(4). After carefully rev iewing the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo, see In re Berger , 61 F.3d 624, 626 (8th-2-

Cir. 1995), we conclude the court did not err in denying discharge based on it s determination that Thielking made false and material statements under oath with intent to defraud his creditors, see 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4); In re Mertz , 955 F.2d 596, 598 (8th Cir. 1992). Given the bankruptcy court’s thorough treatment of the discharge issue, w e c o nclude that an extended discussion is not warranted. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RON E. REYNOLDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 09-cv-00301-RS 

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

On February 18, 2015, defendants filed notice that the parties had reached a settlement in 

principle, subject to certain finalization issues, and requested that all deadlines be vacated. A 

standby order of dismissal issued, required the parties either to file a stipulation of dismissal by

June 22, 2015 or to appear on June 25, 2015 and show cause why the case should not be 

dismissed. The parties were advised that failure to comply with the order could result in dismissal 

of the case. At the parties’ request, the deadlines were subsequently extended to July 27, 2015 and 

July 30, 2015, respectively. 

The parties thereafter failed to file a stipulated dismissal or any other response, or to 

communicate with the Court, or to appear at the hearing. Good cause appearing, this action is 

hereby dismissed.

Case 3:09-cv-00301-RS Document 114 Filed 07/30/15 Page 1 of 2
<< SHORT ORDER TITLE >>

CASE NO. 09-cv-00301-RS

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

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 30, 2015

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00301-RS Document 114 Filed 07/30/15 Page 2 of 2
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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IGUACU, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANTONIO CABRERA MANO FILHO,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-09-0380 RS (EMC)

ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL

BRIEFING

(Docket No. 25)

The Court hereby orders Plaintiff to provide supplemental briefing in support of its ex parte

application for a right to attach order. More specifically, the Court is in need of additional briefing

with respect to the amount of consideration that ADM allegedly paid Defendant. 

For the Jatai deal, Plaintiff asserts that the total consideration paid was BRL 6,483,000

because Defendant’s e-mail represents that that was the “[p]urchase price to be received from

ADM.” Id., Ex. 5 (e-mail). Plaintiff does not count the BRL 6,000,000 listed by Defendant as

“Goodwill.” In contrast, for the Limeira deal, Plaintiff asserts that the total consideration paid was

BRL 101,868,000 -- which consists of not only the “[p]urchase price to be received from ADM” but

also the “Goodwill” (as well as another component). Plaintiff does not explain why it did not

include “Goodwill” as part of the total consideration for the Jatai deal but did include “Goodwill” as

part of the total consideration for the Limeira deal. Moreover, it is not clear what Plaintiff and/or

Defendant mean by “Goodwill” and whether it should be included as part of the consideration paid

by ADM.

Case 3:09-cv-00380-RS Document 41 Filed 03/22/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiff to provide supplemental briefing to address these two

issues -- i.e., (1) what is meant by “Goodwill” and whether it should be included as part of the

consideration and (2) why “Goodwill” was included for the consideration for the Limeira deal but

not for the Jatai deal.

This supplemental briefing shall be filed within a week of the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 22, 2010

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00380-RS Document 41 Filed 03/22/10 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Town of Lee, Petitioner, v Stephen Berger, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents.

Petition dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, transferred to this court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (subd [g]), petitioner seeks to review a decision of the respondent, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, directing the petitioner to issue a home relief grant to respondent Gilbert Gauthier in accordance with the authorization of intervenor-respondent Commissioner of Oneida County Department of Social Services and further directing petitioner to reimburse the county for home relief grants made to *1178respondent Gauthier. Petitioner is part of the integrated structure of the State-wide social services system under the administration of the New York State Department of Social Services (Social Services Law, §§ 20, 34, 65, 67). Pursuant to section 74-h (subd 1, par [c], cl [c]) of the Social Services Law, the determination of the commissioner as chief of the New York State Department of Social Services is binding on all welfare officials and agencies in the system. Accordingly, petitioner may not challenge the determination of the commissioner in an article 78 proceeding. *(Matter of Town of Marshall v New York State Dept. of Social Servs.,*89 Misc 2d 386, aifd 62 AD2d 1163; *Matter of Samuels v Berger,*55 AD2d 913; *Matter of Reed v New York State Dept. of Soc. Servs.,*78 Misc 2d 266.) All concur, except Cardamone, J., who dissents and votes to consider the petition on the merits for the reasons stated in his dissenting memorandum in *Matter of Town of Marshall v New York State Dept. of Social Servs.,*62 AD2d 1163). (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Oneida Supreme Court.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Cardamone, Hancock, Jr., and Witmer, JJ.
[PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING AND STATUS CONFERENCE 

 1

Case No.: 3:08-CV-01190 SI 

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

. 

BURNHAM BROWN 

Robert M. Bodzin, State Bar No. 201327 

P.O. Box 119 

Oakland, CA 94604 

Telephone: (510) 835-6833 

Facsimile: (510) 835-6666 

rbodzin@BurnhamBrown.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

[Additional Counsel Appear on Signature Page] 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CLAUDE BRYANT, et al., on behalf of 

themselves and all other employees and former 

employees similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

SERVICE CORPORATION 

INTERNATIONAL et al. 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO. 3:08-CV-01190 SI

[PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING 

HEARING ON MOTION FOR 

PROTECTIVE ORDER AND 

SANCTIONS AND STATUS 

CONFERENCE 

 Pursuant to the Stipulation of counsel and good cause appearing, the Court hereby orders 

as follows: 

 1. The hearing date for Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order and Sanctions (Docket 

No. 249) shall be continued to April 30, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. and the status conference shall be 

continued to the same date at 3:00 p.m.

 

9:00 A.M.

Case 3:08-cv-01190-SI Document 272 Filed 04/08/10 Page 1 of 2
[PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING AND STATUS CONFERENCE 

 2

Case No.: 3:08-CV-01190 SI 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED: 

 

 

AGREED TO: 

By: /s/ Annette Gifford 

J. Nelson Thomas (pro hac vice) 

Patrick J. Solomon (pro hac vice) 

Annette Gifford (pro hac vice) 

THOMAS & SOLOMON LLP 

693 East Avenue 

Rochester, NY 14607 

Telephone: 585-272-0540 

Facsimile: 585-272-0574 

 Robert M. Bodzin, State Bar No. 201327 

BURNHAM BROWN 

P.O. Box 119 

Oakland, CA 94604 

Telephone: (510) 835-6833 

Facsimile: (510) 835-6666 

Charles H. Saul (pro hac vice) 

Liberty J. Weyandt (pro hac vice) 

Kyle T. McGee (pro hac vice) 

MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 

525 William Penn Place 

Suite 3300 

Pittsburgh, PA 15219 

Telephone: 412-281-4256 

Facsimile: 412-642-2380 

Counsel for Plaintiffs 

Honorable Susan Illston 

United States District Court 

By: /s/ Lonnie J. Williams_____________

Lonnie J. Williams, Jr. (pro hac vice)

QUARLES & BRADY LLP 

One Renaissance Square 

Two North Central Avenue 

Phoenix, AZ 85004 

Telephone: 602-229-5200 

Facsimile: 602-229-5690 

Nicholas P. Forestiere 

John A. Mason 

 GURNEE & DANIELS LLP 

2240 Douglas Blvd, Suite 150 

Roseville, CA 95648 

Telephone: 916-797-3100 

Facsimile: 916-797-3131 

Counsel for Defendants 

 

Case 3:08-cv-01190-SI Document 272 Filed 04/08/10 Page 2 of 2
§ 203.414 Amount of payment—partial claims. ( a ) *Claim amount.* Where a claim for partial insurance benefits is filed in accordance with § 203.371, the amount of the insurance benefits shall consist of the arrearage not to exceed an amount equivalent to 12 monthly mortgage payments, and any costs prescribed by HUD related to the default.
( b ) *Servicing fee.* The claim may also include a payment for activities, such as servicing the subordinate mortgage, which HUD may require.
[61 FR 35019, July 3, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 60130, Nov. 6, 1997]
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2826 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to revise the amount of minimum 

allotments under the Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 8, 2005 

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico (for herself, Ms. HERSETH, Mr. SANDERS, and 

Mr. LANGEVIN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to revise the amount 

of minimum allotments under the Projects for Assistance 

in Transition from Homelessness program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. MINIMUM ALLOTMENTS UNDER THE PROJECTS 

4 FOR ASSISTANCE IN TRANSITION FROM 

5 HOMELESSNESS PROGRAM. 

6 Section 524 of the Public Health Service Act (42 

7 U.S.C. 290cc–24) is amended to read as follows: 
2 

•HR 2826 IH 

1 ‘‘SEC. 524. DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT OF ALLOTMENT. 

2 ‘‘(a) DETERMINATION UNDER FORMULA.—Subject 

3 to subsection (b), the allotment required in section 521 

4 for a State for a fiscal year is the product of— 

5 ‘‘(1) an amount equal to the amount appro6 priated under section 535 for the fiscal year; and 

7 ‘‘(2) a percentage equal to the quotient of— 

8 ‘‘(A) an amount equal to the population 

9 living in urbanized areas of the State involved, 

10 as indicated by the most recent data collected 

11 by the Bureau of the Census; and 

12 ‘‘(B) an amount equal to the population 

13 living in urbanized areas of the United States, 

14 as indicated by the sum of the respective 

15 amounts determined for the States under sub16 paragraph (A). 

17 ‘‘(b) MINIMUM ALLOTMENT.— 

18 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), 

19 the allotment for a State under section 521 for a fis20 cal year shall, at a minimum, be the greater of— 

21 ‘‘(A) the amount the State received under 

22 section 521 in fiscal year 2005; and 

23 ‘‘(B) $600,000 for each of the several 

24 States, the District of Columbia, and the Com25 monwealth of Puerto Rico, and $100,000 for 

26 each of Guam, the Virgin Islands, American 
3 

•HR 2826 IH 

1 Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern 

2 Mariana Islands. 

3 ‘‘(2) CONDITION.—If the funds appropriated in 

4 any fiscal year under section 535 are insufficient to 

5 ensure that States receive a minimum allotment in 

6 accordance with paragraph (1), then— 

7 ‘‘(A) no State shall receive less than the 

8 amount they received in fiscal year 2005; and 

9 ‘‘(B) any funds remaining after amounts 

10 are provided under subparagraph (A) shall be 

11 used to meet the requirement of paragraph 

12 (1)(B), to the maximum extent possible.’’. 

Æ
§ 906.5 Prehearing conferences. ( a ) The Board may in its discretion order a prehearing conference of the parties (which may be presided over by any member) for the purpose of considering: ( 1 ) Simplification or clarification of the issues;
( 2 ) Serving of interrogatories;
( 3 ) Stipulations, admissions, agreements on documents, matters already on record, or similar agreements which will avoid the necessity of proving facts or issues not in dispute;
( 4 ) Identification of witnesses the parties may wish to call and the intended scope of their testimony; limitation on the number of witnesses; and arrangement for the appearance of witnesses;
( 5 ) Avoidance of irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitive testimony;
( 6 ) The possibility of disposition of the case through agreement;
( 7 ) The order of presentation at the hearing and the allocation of the burden of proof; and
( 8 ) Such other matters as may aid in the disposition of the case.
( b ) The parties authorized to attend the hearing may attend the prehearing conference.
( c ) The results of the conference shall be summarized in writing by the Board and made a part of the record of proceedings. Copies of the summary shall be sent to the parties. The parties may submit comments or corrections on the summary.