alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Raymond J. Spencer, Chief Executive Officer ofKanbay International, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify, that:

(1)         The Company’s annualreport on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005 (the“Form 10-K”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany for the periods presented therein.
| /s/ RAYMOND  J. SPENCER                                          |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Raymond J. Spencer*Chief Executive Officer*  March 16, 2006 |   |

 

----
Order entered June 21, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00116-CR

No. 05-13-00117-CR

JENNY REBECCA BONHAM, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F12-54172-Q, F12-54174-Q

ORDER

On the Court’s own motion, we ORDER the appellant’s brief received on June 10, 2013 

filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1736

DEBRA R. SMITH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SAM’S EAST, INC.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District 

Judge. (1:15-cv-00035-JPJ-PMS)

Submitted: December 29, 2016 Decided: January 9, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit 

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary Lynn Tate, TATE LAW PC, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant. 

W. Bradford Stallard, P. Danielle Stone, PENN, STUART & 

ESKRIDGE, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Debra R. Smith appeals the district court’s order granting 

summary judgment in favor of Sam’s East, Inc., in her personal 

injury action. “[W]e review de novo the district court’s order 

granting summary judgment.” Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of the 

Courts, 780 F.3d 562, 565 n.1 (4th Cir. 2015). “A district 

court ‘shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that 

there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the 

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Id. at 568 

(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). “A dispute is genuine if a 

reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” 

Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In determining whether 

a genuine issue of material fact exists, “we view the facts and 

all justifiable inferences arising therefrom in the light most 

favorable to . . . the nonmoving party.” Id. at 565 n.1 

(internal quotation marks omitted). However, “the nonmoving 

party must rely on more than conclusory allegations, mere 

speculation, the building of one inference upon another, or the 

mere existence of a scintilla of evidence.” Dash v. Mayweather, 

731 F.3d 303, 311 (4th Cir. 2013). 

We have thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs and the 

materials in the joint appendix and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Smith v. Sam’s East, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-00035-JPJ-PMS
3

(W.D. Va. June 7, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           Parent Guide: The Purse      

# Parent Guide: The Purse

This guide will help parents teach their child money management skills while reading “The Purse” by Kathy Caple. 

https://s3.amazonaws.com/files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_book-club_the-purse.pdf
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   In connection with the Report of Castle Arch Real Estate Investment Company, L.L.C. a California limited liability company (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) I, Kirby D. Cochran, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my knowledge:  a. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and  b. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.    /s/ Kirby D. Cochran Kirby D. Cochran, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)  Dated August 13, 2007
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsOn decoding of multi-level MPSK modulation codesThe decoding problem of multi-level block modulation codes is investigated. The hardware design of soft-decision Viterbi decoder for some short length 8-PSK block modulation codes is presented. An effective way to reduce the hardware complexity of the decoder by reducing the branch metric and path metric, using a non-uniform floating-point to integer mapping scheme, is proposed and discussed. The simulation results of the design are presented. The multi-stage decoding (MSD) of multi-level modulation codes is also investigated. The cases of soft-decision and hard-decision MSD are considered and their performance are evaluated for several codes of different lengths and different minimum squared Euclidean distances. It is shown that the soft-decision MSD reduces the decoding complexity drastically and it is suboptimum. The hard-decision MSD further simplifies the decoding while still maintaining a reasonable coding gain over the uncoded system, if the component codes are chosen properly. Finally, some basic 3-level 8-PSK modulation codes using BCH codes as component codes are constructed and their coding gains are found for hard decision multistage decoding.Document ID19900012945Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsLin, Shu*(Hawaii Univ. Maui, HI, United States)*Gupta, Alok Kumar*(Hawaii Univ. Maui, HI, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMay 20, 1990Subject CategoryComputer Programming And SoftwareReport/Patent NumberNASA-90-003NASA-CR-186601NAS 1.26:186601Accession Number90N22261Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG5-931Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900012945.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### §§ 1726.305-1726.399 [Reserved]
**UNITED STATES**

**SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**

**Washington, D.C. 20549**

 

**FORM 10-K/A**

**(Amendment No. 1)**

 

þ**ANNUAL REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

 

For the fiscal year ended: **December31, 2012**

 

or

 

o**TRANSITION REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

 

For the transition period from __________to __________

 

Commission file number: **000-15078**
August 25-25, 2011 Exceptional Event Demonstration

Page 39; corrected video link.

Page 63; revised instructions for accessing videos and corrected video link format.

July 18, 2011 Exceptional Event Demonstration

Page 26, corrected four wind speed values whic h were incorrectly converted from meters

per second to miles per hour.
Exhibit 32.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
 Pursuant to
 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)
 June 30, 2008 Patriot Capital Funding, Inc. Richard P. Buckanavage,
 (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 results of operations
of the Registrant.
 /s/ Richard P. Buckanavage

Name: Richard P. BuckanavageDate: August 8, 2008
Dismiss and Opinion Filed August 7, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-23-00253-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF N.G.M., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-22-05861

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Reichek, and Miskel

Opinion by Justice Reichek

This appeal was filed after the Office of the Attorney General filed a notice in 

the trial court that it was nonsuiting its petition to establish the parent-child 

relationship, the sole affirmative pleading in the underlying cause. Because nothing 

before us indicated the trial court had signed an order of nonsuit or other appealable 

order or judgment, we questioned our jurisdiction over the appeal. See Jack B. 

Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (appellate courts have 

jurisdiction over final judgments that dispose of all parties and claims and 

interlocutory orders authorized by statute to be appealed); see also Farmer v. Ben E. 

Keith Co., 907 S.W.2d 495, 496 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam) (appellate timetable runs 
–2–

from date judgment is signed, not form filing of pleading). Although we gave 

appellant an opportunity to demonstrate jurisdiction, he has failed to do so. 

Accordingly, on the record before us, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

230253f.p05 /Amanda L. Reichek//

AMANDA L. REICHEK

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF N.G.M., A 

CHILD 

No. 05-23-00253-CV 

On Appeal from the 301st Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-22-05861.

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Reichek, Justices Partida-Kipness 

and Miskel participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Judgment entered this 7

th day of August 2023.
§ 1720.10 Fees. ( a ) *Guarantee fee.* An annual fee equal to 30 basis points (0.3 percent) of the amount of the unpaid principal of the guarantee bond will be deposited into the Rural Economic Development Subaccount maintained under section 313(b)(2)(A) of the RE Act.
( b ) Subject to paragraph (c) of this section, up to one-third of the 30 basis point guarantee fee may be used to fund the subsidy amount of providing guarantees, to the extent not otherwise funded through appropriation actions by Congress.
( c ) Notwithstanding subsections (c) and (e)(2) of section 313A of the RE Act, the Secretary shall, with the consent of the lender and if otherwise authorized by law, adjust the schedule for payment of the annual fee, not to exceed an average of 30 basis points per year for the term of the loan, to ensure that sufficient funds are available to pay the subsidy costs for note guarantees.
## Other Youth Topics

## Breadcrumb

            -  Youth Topics 
            -  Violence Prevention 
            -           Involving the Philanthropic and Corporate Community in Violence Prevention Planning and Action      

# Involving the Philanthropic and Corporate Community in Violence Prevention Planning and Action

The National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention (Forum) developed a guide to involving the philanthropic and corporate community in violence prevention planning and action. This guide is based on the experience of individuals directing citywide violence prevention efforts, philanthropic entities, the Working Groups, the cities in the California Cities Gang Prevention Network, and the Forum cities. The guide aims to make clear that any comprehensive crime and violence prevention effort requires the private sector as an essential partner to be successful.

Download the guide, *Involving the Philanthropic and Corporate Community in Violence Prevention Planning and Action* (PDF, 14 Pages)

## Main navigation

- About the National Forum
- National Forum Strategic Plan 2011-2015
- Strategic Planning Toolkit
- Spotlight on Forum Communities
- Involving the Philanthropic & Corporate Community
- Sustainability
#### UNITED STATES of America ex rel. John CRAWLEY v. Alfred T. RUNDLE, Supt.

Civ. A. No. 69-250.

United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

Nov. 6, 1970.

John Crawley, in personam.

Arlen Specter, Dist. Atty., Joseph J. Musto, Asst. Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BODY, District Judge.

Before the Court is relator’s motion to reinstate appeal time, which he alleges is pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).

This Court denied relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus on October 28, 1969 but found there was probable cause for appeal, 312 F.Supp. 15. In his pro se motion, relator acknowledges receipt of the Court’s memorandum and order, but claims that he only learned two months ago that the certificate of probable cause for appeal meant that “the case had merit and should be appealed to the next Court above.” He claims that since his receipt of the Court’s memorandum and order, he made every effort to contact the Voluntary Defender Association by mail to ascertain the meaning of the Court’s order, but that he got no response to his letters.

What petitioner seeks here is an extension of his time for appeal beyond the time limits stated in Fed.R.App.P. 4 *1400(a). Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) may not be used for such a purpose. Demers v. Brown, 343 F.2d 427 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 818, 86 S.Ct. 40, 15 L.Ed.2d 64 (1965); see Friedman v. Wilson Freight Forwarding Co., 320 F.2d 244 (3d Cir., 1963).

It is clear that relator’s request — which, were it filed earlier, we might have considered as a notice of appeal under Fed.R.App.P. 4(a) — comes too late. Ninety days is the outermost limit allowable for a notice of appeal to be filed under Fed.R.App.P. 4(a). Relator’s motion comes nearly a year after this Court’s denial of his request for the writ of habeas corpus. One Circuit has held that the time for filing notice of appeal under its local rules only begins to run after appellant was notified of his right to appeal. In that case, however, the relator did not know, as he did here, that the district court had denied his request for the writ. Curry v. Wainwright, 416 F.2d 379 (5th Cir. 1969). Here, where Fed.R.App.P. 4(a) is applicable, there can be no notice of appeal filed beyond the time limits stated in that rule. Lindsey v. Perini, 409 F.2d 1341 (6th Cir. 1969).

ORDER

And now, this sixth day of November, 1970, it is ordered that the motion of John Crawley for reinstatement of appeal time is denied.
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           FEMA Catalogue of Youth Disaster Preparedness Education Resources      

# FEMA Catalogue of Youth Disaster Preparedness Education Resources

The Catalogue of Youth Disaster Preparedness Education Resources was created to assist individuals and organizations with locating preparedness resources tailored to youth of all ages (preschool through college). Research has shown that youth disaster preparedness education is vital to building and maintaining resilient communities—especially when incorporating key recommended practices.

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1392154628242-0e3e57e0d727baf6ac7fff1c2ce67964/Catalogue_YouthDisaster_Preparedness_Resources_September_2013.pdf
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 30, 2013

h0923 

# Order

Clerk September 30, 2013

146832

GREENBROOKE PARKHOMES

CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 146832

COA: 305985

Oakland CC: 2011

- 116499

- CH

KATHY L. THOMAS,

Defendant,

and

MIDFIRST BANK,

Defendant

- Appellee,

and

SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT,

Defendant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 20, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1744 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1744

     To provide for the implementation of the multispecies habitat 
  conservation plan for the Virgin River, Nevada, and Lincoln County, 
 Nevada, to extend the authority to purchase certain parcels of public 
                     land, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 25, 2013

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To provide for the implementation of the multispecies habitat 
  conservation plan for the Virgin River, Nevada, and Lincoln County, 
 Nevada, to extend the authority to purchase certain parcels of public 
                     land, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Multispecies Habitat Conservation 
Plan Implementation Act''.

SEC. 2. IMPLEMENTATION OF MULTISPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANS.

    (a) Virgin River, Nevada.--Section 3(d)(3)(B) of Public Law 99-548 
(100 Stat. 3061, 116 Stat. 2018) is amended by inserting ``and 
implementation'' after ``development''.
    (b) Lincoln County, Nevada.--Section 5(b)(1)(B) of the Lincoln 
County Land Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-298; 114 Stat. 1048), is 
amended by inserting ``and implementation'' after ``development''.

SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF PURCHASE AUTHORITY AND WITHDRAWALS.

    Section 3 of Public Law 99-548 (100 Stat. 3061, 113 Stat. 1501A-
166) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (e)--
                    (A) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``For a period 
                of 12 years after the date of the enactment of this 
                Act'' and inserting ``Until November 29, 2021'';
                    (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``Not later than 
                10 years after the date of the enactment of this 
                subsection'' and inserting ``Not later than November 
                29, 2021''; and
                    (C) in paragraph (5), by striking ``the date that 
                is 12 years after the date of the enactment of this 
                subsection'' and inserting ``November 29, 2021''; and
            (2) in subsection (f)(3), by striking ``the date that is 12 
        years after the date of the enactment of this subsection'' and 
        inserting ``November 29, 2021''.
                                 <all>
```