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

Exhibit 32.1


                        CERTIFICATION OF CEO 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 Vorsatech Ventures, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Thomas Braun, as
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certifies, 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 his knowledge, that:

(1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of
         the Company.


By:  /s/ Thomas Braun
---------------------------
Thomas Braun
CEO and CFO
May 11, 2005
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED March 2, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-10654 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FRANCISCO JAVIER RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:03-CR-30-ALL-A

-------------------- Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Francisco Javier Rodriguez appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after deportation. Rodriguez has filed a motion for leave to file an out-of-time reply brief; that motion is GRANTED. He first argues on appeal that the district court erred in its application of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 by counting three prior drug convictions separately, which increased his criminal history score and resulted in a higher guideline range. We conclude that Rodriguez has not shown that the district courtNo. 03-10654 -2- clearly erred in finding that the prior cases were not consolidated. See Buford v. United States , 532 U.S. 59, 64-66 (2001); United States v. Moreno-Arredondo , 255 F.3d 198, 203 n.10 (5th Cir. 2001. “The applicability vel non of Tex. Penal Code § 3.03 does not affect our analysis.” United States v. Fitzhugh , 984 F.2d 147 n.18 (5th Cir. 1993) The district court did not clearly err in finding that the three prior offenses were unrelated. Rodriguez’s threeconvictions involved three separate transactions over a threemonth period involving differing amounts of cocaine. Furthermore, although Rodriguez was charged for all of the offenses on the same day by the same judge and his sentences were concurrent, he was indicted separately for each offense, each indictment was assigned a different docket number, and the sentences were not all the same length. The foregoing suggests that the two offenses should not be considered consolidated for federal sentencing purposes. See United States v. Huskey , 137 F.3d 283, 288 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Kates , 174 F.3d 580, 584 (5th Cir. 1999). Rodriguez also argues that his guilty plea was not voluntary because the district court did not admonish him that the “aggravated felony” provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) stated an essential element of the offense to which he was pleading guilty. He acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by circuit precedent, but he seeks to preserve the issue for possibleNo. 03-10654 -3- Supreme Court review in light of the Supreme court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 519 (2000). As Rodriguez concedes, this issue is foreclosed. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 247 (1998); United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000).

AFFIRMED.
### §396. Return of contributions to cooperative investigations of projects

On and after December 25, 1924, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to receive moneys from any State, municipality, irrigation district, individual, or other interest, public or private, expend the same in connection with moneys appropriated by the United States for any cooperative investigation of the feasibility of reclamation projects, and return to the contributor any moneys so contributed in excess of the actual cost of that portion of the work properly chargeable to the contribution.

(Dec. 5, 1924, ch. 4, §1, 43 Stat. 685.)
### SUBCHAPTER I—OBJECTIVES
### §9114. Antitrust review

#### (a) Review of applications by Attorney General

Whenever any application for issuance, transfer, or renewal of any license is received, the Administrator shall transmit promptly to the Attorney General a complete copy of such application. Within 90 days of the receipt of the application, the Attorney General shall conduct such antitrust review of the application as he deems appropriate, and submit to the Administrator any advice or recommendations he deems advisable to avoid any action upon such application by the Administrator which would create a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws. If the Attorney General fails to file such views within the 90-day period, the Administrator shall proceed as if such views had been received. The Administrator shall not issue, transfer, or renew the license during the 90-day period, except upon written confirmation by the Attorney General that he does not intend to submit any further advice or recommendation on the application during such period.

#### (b) Issuance of license as constituting no defense for antitrust violations

The issuance of a license under this chapter shall not be admissible in any way as a defense to any civil or criminal action for violation of the antitrust laws of the United States, nor shall it in any way modify or abridge any private right of action under such laws. Nothing in this section shall be construed to bar the Attorney General or the Federal Trade Commission from challenging any anticompetitive situation involved in the ownership, construction, or operation of an ocean thermal energy conversion facility or plantship.

(Pub. L. 96–320, title I, §104, Aug. 3, 1980, 94 Stat. 983.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (b), was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 96–320, Aug. 3, 1980, 94 Stat. 974, known as the Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Act of 1980, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 9101 of this title and Tables.
### §§1431 to 1435. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Sections 1431 to 1435, relating to the sale of public lands subject to unintentional trespass, were omitted pursuant to section 1435 of this title, which provided for an expiration date three years after September 26, 1968, with certain exceptions.

Section 1431, Pub. L. 90–516, §1, Sept. 26, 1968, 82 Stat. 870, authorized Secretary of the Interior to sell at public auction any tract of public domain not exceeding a certain size which was subject to unintentional trespass.

Section 1432, Pub. L. 90–516, §2, Sept. 26, 1968, 82 Stat. 870, related to preference rights of contiguous landowners.

Section 1433, Pub. L. 90–516, §3, Sept. 26, 1968, 82 Stat. 870, related to continuing liability for unauthorized prior use.

Section 1434, Pub. L. 90–516, §4, Sept. 26, 1968, 82 Stat. 870, related to acreage limitations.

Section 1435, Pub. L. 90–516, §5, Sept. 26, 1968, 82 Stat. 870, provided that authority granted by this subchapter expire three years from Sept. 26, 1968, except that sales for which application had been made in accordance with this subchapter prior to expiration of that period could be consummated and patents issued after expiration of that period.
#### Henrietta Van Schoonhoven, Respondent, v. George Van Schoonhoven, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $25 costs and disbursements. Memorandum: Unless the parties agree upon a reference, a motion for a preference for a trial by the court should be granted if either party applies therefor. (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term giving exclusive occupancy of home of the parties to plaintiff and her children, directing defendant to pay all expenses of its maintenance, plus temporary alimony and counsel fees.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
§ 513.412 Opportunity to contest suspension. ( a ) *Submission in opposition.* Within 30 days after receipt of the notice of suspension, the respondent may submit, in person, in writing, or through a representative, information and argument in opposition to the suspension.
( b ) *Additional proceedings as to disputed material facts.* ( 1 ) If the suspending official finds that the respondent's submission in opposition raises a genuine dispute over facts material to the suspension, respondent(s) shall be afforded an opportunity to appear with a representative, submit documentary evidence, present witnesses, and confront any witness the Board presents, unless: ( i ) The action is based on an indictment, conviction or civil judgment, or
( ii ) A determination is made, on the basis of Department of Justice advice, that the substantial interests of the Federal Government in pending or contemplated legal proceedings based on the same facts as the suspension would be prejudiced.
( 2 ) A transcribed record of any additional proceedings shall be prepared and made available at cost to the respondent, upon request, unless the respondent and the Board, by mutual agreement, waive the requirement for a transcript.
### §485h–6. Repayment contracts; amendment for provision, addition or modification of irrigation blocks

After the execution of a contract pursuant to the authority of section 9(d)(1) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 [43 U.S.C. 485h(d)(1)] and prior to the commencement of the development period provided thereunder, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to amend such contract to provide for irrigation blocks, or if such are already provided, to add to or modify such irrigation blocks, as he shall deem desirable to carry out the purposes of that Act.

(Pub. L. 87–613, §1, Aug. 28, 1962, 76 Stat. 407.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

That Act, referred to in text, means act Aug. 4, 1939, ch. 418, 53 Stat. 1187, which enacted this subchapter, sections 375a, 380a, and 387 to 389 of this title and section 16d of former Title 41, Public Contracts, and enacted provision set out as a note under section 485j of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 485k of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 which comprises this subchapter.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-28-1999
<CASH>                                              12,740
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      337,642
<ALLOWANCES>                                         4,952
<INVENTORY>                                         15,343
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   511,234
<PP&E>                                              86,619
<DEPRECIATION>                                      51,135
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     575,735
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              560,582
<BONDS>                                            129,731
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 3
<OTHER-SE>                                        (114,953)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       575,735
<SALES>                                            356,460
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   356,460
<CGS>                                              269,873
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      269,873
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   120,775
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  29,197
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (62,397)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             2
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (62,399)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     (33,510)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (95,909)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (2.96)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (2.96)
        


</TABLE>
### Data files from the Grays Harbor Sediment Transport Experiment Spring 2001

By: Laura A. LandermanChristopher R. Sherwood**Guy GelfenbaumJessica LacyPeter RuggieroDouglas WilsonTom ChisholmKeith Kurrus

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ds98

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**                            (html)
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area
#### § 3285.602 Utility connections.

Refer to § 3285.904 for considerations for utility system connections.
### §4334. Other statutory obligations of agencies

Nothing in section 4332 or 4333 of this title shall in any way affect the specific statutory obligations of any Federal agency (1) to comply with criteria or standards of environmental quality, (2) to coordinate or consult with any other Federal or State agency, or (3) to act, or refrain from acting contingent upon the recommendations or certification of any other Federal or State agency.

(Pub. L. 91–190, title I, §104, Jan. 1, 1970, 83 Stat. 854.)
### §9819. Evaluation of programs; implementation and funding, etc.; research and demonstration projects; implementation and purposes

(a) Each program for which grants are made under this subchapter shall provide for a thorough evaluation of the effectiveness of the program in achieving its purposes, which evaluation shall be conducted by such public or private organizations as the Secretary in consultation with existing grantees familiar with programs carried out under the Community Services Block Grant Act [42 U.S.C. 9901 et seq.] may designate, and all or part of the costs of evaluation may be paid from funds appropriated to carry out this part. In evaluating the performance of any community development corporation funded under part A, the criteria for evaluation shall be based upon such program objectives, goals, and priorities as are consistent with the purposes of this subchapter and were set forth by such community development corporation in its proposal for funding as approved and agreed upon by or as subsequently modified from time to time by mutual agreement between the Secretary and such community development corporation.

(b) The Secretary shall conduct, either directly or through grants or other arrangements, research and demonstration projects designed to suggest new programs and policies to achieve the purposes of this subchapter in such ways as to provide opportunities for employment, ownership, and a better quality of life for low-income residents.

(Pub. L. 97–35, title VI, §630, Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 497.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Community Services Block Grant Act, referred to in subsec. (a), is subtitle B (§671 et seq.) of title VI of Pub. L. 97–35, Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 511, which is classified generally to chapter 106 (§9901 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 9901 of this title and Tables.
Motion to Reinstate Appeal Granted, Memorandum Opinion filed September

27 , 2016 , Withdrawn, Appeal Reinstated, Order filed November 10, 2016

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 16

- 00523

- CV

____________ LYNDON MAYBERRY , Appellant

V.

KINDER MORGAN CRUDE & CONDENSTATE, LLC , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 412th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 71532



### ORDER

On September 27, 2016 , this court issued an opin ion dismissing this appeal.
On October 27 , 2016, appellant filed a motion to reinstate the appeal . The motion is
GRANTED

. This court’s opinion filed September 27, 2016 , is WITHDRAWN , and our judgment of that date is VACATED. The appeal is ordered REINSTATED. The clerk’s record is due 30 days fr om the date of this order.
PER CURIAM
### §9859f. Reports

Each State that receives an allotment under section 9859c of this title shall annually prepare and submit to the Secretary a report that describes—

(1) the activities carried out with funds made available through the allotment; and

(2) the progress made by the State toward achieving the goals described in the application submitted by the State under section 9859d of this title.

(Pub. L. 106–310, div. A, title XIV, §1407, Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1145.)
(No. 84-CC-0533

#### Dorothy Quinn, Special Administrator of the Estate of Michael Grider, deceased, Claimant, *v.*The State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed May 6, 1987.*

Steinberg, Burtker & Grossman, Ltd., for Claimant.

Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General (Ralanda Webb, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.

Sommer, J.

This matter coming to be heard upon the joint stipulation of the parties for the entry of judgment:

That the Claimant’s decedent was a resident of the Dixon Developmental Center, an Illinois Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities facility. Pursuant to a placement decision initiated by the Department, the decedent was transferred to a private care facility.

That at all times subsequent to his transfer to private care, the Department retained and exercised monitoring, licensing and advisory powers with respect to the decedent’s placement.

That on or about September 13,1981, Michael Grider was absent from the premises of the private care facility located on the shores of Lake Michigan in Chicago, Illinois, without supervision and drowned in Lake Michigan, At the time of his death Michael Grider was 19 years old.

*127The Court further finds that the Respondent denies responsibility for the death of Claimant’s decedent and that the parties have determined that in their respective best interests, and without admission of fault, this cause shall be settled and compromised in the sum of fifteen thousand ($15,000.00) dollars and the Court under the circumstances finds that said sum is fair, reasonable and just. This opinion shall in no way act as precedent in future claims which may be filed.

It is hereby ordered that Claimant, Dorothy Quinn, Special Administrator of the Estate of Michael Grider, deceased, be awarded the total sum of fifteen thousand ($15,000.00) dollars in full and final settlement of all claims which are the subject matter of her complaint.
##### 



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 Quarterly Report of Metris Companies Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark
P. Wagener, Senior Vice President, Controller and Interim Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. /s/ Mark P. WagenerName:
    
    Mark P. WagenerTitle:
    
    Senior Vice President, Controller and Interim Chief Financial OfficerAugust 9, 2004
§ 206.41 Counseling. ( a ) *List provided.* At the time of the initial contact with the prospective borrower, the mortgagee shall give the borrower a list of the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of HECM counselors and their employing agencies, which have been approved by the Commissioner, in accordance with subpart E of this part, as qualified and able to provide the information described in paragraph (b) of this section. The borrower, any Eligible or Ineligible Non-Borrowing Spouse, and any non-borrowing owner must receive counseling.
( b ) *Information to be provided.* ( 1 ) A HECM counselor must discuss with the borrower: ( i ) The information required by section 255(f) of the NHA;
( ii ) Whether the borrower has signed a contract or agreement with an estate planning service firm that requires, or purports to require, the borrower to pay a fee on or after closing that may exceed amounts permitted by the Commissioner or this part;
( iii ) If such a contract has been signed under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, the extent to which services under the contract may not be needed or may be available at nominal or no cost from other sources, including the mortgagee; and
( iv ) Any other requirements determined by the Commissioner.
( 2 ) If the HECM borrower has an Eligible Non-Borrowing Spouse, in addition to meeting the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a HECM counselor shall discuss with the borrower and Eligible Non-Borrowing Spouse: ( i ) The requirement that the Eligible Non-Borrowing Spouse must obtain ownership of the property or other legal right to remain in the property for life, upon the death of the last surviving borrower;
( ii ) A failure to obtain ownership or other legal right to remain in the property for life will result in the HECM becoming due and payable and the Eligible Non-Borrowing Spouse will not receive the benefit of the Deferral Period;
( iii ) The requirement that the property must be the principal residence of the Eligible Non-Borrowing Spouse prior to and after the death of the borrowing spouse;
( iv ) The requirement that the Eligible Non-Borrowing Spouse fulfills all obligations of the mortgage, including the payment of property charges and upkeep of the property; and
( v ) Any other requirements determined by the Commissioner.
( 3 ) If the HECM borrower has an Ineligible Non-Borrowing Spouse, in addition to meeting the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a HECM counselor shall discuss with the borrower and Ineligible Non-Borrowing Spouse: ( i ) The Deferral Period will not be applicable;
( ii ) The HECM will become due and payable upon the death of the last surviving borrower; and
( iii ) Any other requirements determined by the Commissioner.
( c ) *Certificate.* The HECM counselor will provide the borrower with a certificate stating that the borrower, Non-Borrowing Spouse, and non-borrowing owner, as applicable, has received counseling. The borrower shall provide the mortgagee with a physical copy of the certificate.
### §2247. Federal Reclamation laws

This chapter shall constitute a supplement to the Federal Reclamation laws.

(Pub. L. 102–250, title III, §307, Mar. 5, 1992, 106 Stat. 59.)