alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
6.302-7 Public interest.       (a)                    						            Authority.                                                         (1) Citations:                             10 U.S.C. 3204(a)(7)                                                      or 41 U.S.C.3304(a)(7).                                                            (2)                          								                Full and open competition need not be provided for when the agency head determines that it is not in the public interest in the particular acquisition concerned.                                                                             (b)                   *Application*. This authority may be used when none of the other authorities in 6.302 apply.                                          (c)                    						            Limitations.                                                         (1)                          								                A written determination to use this authority shall be made in accordance with subpart  1.7, by-                                                                           (i)                                										                    The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Air Force, the Secretary of Homeland Security for the Coast Guard, or the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; or                                                                              (ii)                                										                    The head of any other executive agency. This authority may not be delegated.                                                                                                           (2)                          								                The Congress shall be notified in writing of such determination not less than 30 days before award of the contract.                                                            (3)                          								                If required by the head of the agency, the contracting officer shall prepare a justification to support the determination under paragraph (c)(1) of this subsection.                                                            (4)                          								                This Determination and Finding (D&F) shall not be made on a class basis.    **Parent topic:** 6.302 Circumstances permitting other than full and open competition.
<page>
                                                           Exhibit 32.1

                         NORDSTROM CREDIT, INC.

                            13531 EAST CALEY

                       CENTENNIAL, COLORADO 80111

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
              OFFICER REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING
                          FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

I, Kevin T. Knight, the President of Nordstrom Credit, Inc. (the
"Company") in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby
certify that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended July 31, 2003 (the "Report") filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission:

     - fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
       Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     - the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
       material respects, the financial condition and results of
       operations of the Company.



                                                /s/ Kevin T. Knight
                                                ----------------------
                                                Kevin T. Knight
                                                President
                                                September 9, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Nordstrom Credit, Inc. and will be retained by
Nordstrom Credit, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7854** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. DEAN CURTIS SAWYER , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. ( 2:07

- cr - 00125

- RBS

- TEM

- 5; 2:09

- cv - 00634

- RBS )

Submitted : December 13, 2012 Decided: December 19, 2012

Before M OTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Dean Curtis Sawyer, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Pellatiro Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Dean Curtis Sawyer seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2012 ) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The orde r is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C . § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Sl ack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and tha t the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sawyer has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appea lability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Sawyer ’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or3 successive § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain auth orization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for

c onstitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C. A. § 22 55(h ) (W est Supp. 2012)
. Sawyer ’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to fi le a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material s before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED
§ 5001.104 Eligible WWD projects and requirements. For a WWD project to be eligible for a loan guarantee under this part, it must meet the criteria specified in § 5001.102 and this section and be for a borrower eligible to submit an application for the project in accordance with § 5001.120. ( a ) *Type of project.* The project must be for one or more of the following: ( 1 ) To construct, enlarge, extend, or otherwise improve the following types of facilities: ( i ) Drinking water facilities;
( ii ) Sanitary sewage facilities;
( iii ) Solid waste disposal facilities; or
( iv ) Storm wastewater disposal facilities.
( 2 ) Purchase of equipment to operate, maintain, or protect facilities.
( b ) *Public use.* The project must be for a public purpose.
( c ) *Project location.* The project must be located in a rural area as defined in § 5001.3 of this part, except that utility projects serving both rural and non-rural areas are eligible for a loan guarantee regardless of project location. For utility service projects serving both rural and non-rural areas, the Agency will guarantee only the portion of the project necessary to provide the essential services to rural areas. The part of the facility located in a non-rural area must be necessary to provide the essential services to rural areas.
( d ) *Service area.* ( 1 ) The project must be installed to serve any user within the Service Area who desires service and can be feasibly and legally served.
( 2 ) The lender must determine that, when feasible and legally possible, inequities within the project's service area for the same type service proposed will be remedied by the borrower on, or before, completion of the project. Inequities are defined as unjustified variations in availability, adequacy, or quality of service. User rate schedules for portions of existing systems or facilities that were developed under different financing, rates, terms, or conditions do not necessarily constitute inequities.
[85 FR 42518, July 14, 2020, as amended at 86 FR 70355, Dec. 10, 2021]
EXHIBIT 35.1
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                        RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY, LLC
             RALI SERIES 2006-QS12 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized officer of Residential Funding Company, LLC,
as servicer  (the  "Servicer")  pursuant to the Series  Supplement,  dated as of
September 1, 2006,  and the Standard  Terms of Pooling and Servicing  Agreement,
dated as of March 1, 2006 (as amended from time to time, the "Agreement"), among
Residential  Accredit Loans, Inc., as company,  Residential Funding Company, LLC
(formerly  Residential Funding  Corporation),  as master servicer,  and Deutsche
Bank Trust Company Americas, as trustee, does hereby certify that:

1.   A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the  period  covered by the
     Issuing  Entity's  report  on Form 10-K and of the  Servicer's  performance
     under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.

2.   To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Servicer  has
     fulfilled  all of its  obligations  under  the  Agreement  in all  material
     respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:      /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      ------------------------
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title: Managing Director
#### Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation, Respondent, v Dollinger Corporation, Appellant, et al., Defendants. (And 16 Other Actions.)

(Appeal No. 17.)

Order unanimously reversed and motion denied. (See *Meleo v Rochester Gas & Elec. Corp.,*72 AD2d 83.) (Appeal from order of Monroe Supreme Court—partial summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp and Doerr, JJ.
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  M OHAMED M OHASIN A LHAG , Petitioner,

v. No. 02-1569



#  U.S. I MMIGRATION & N ATURALIZATION S ERVICE ; J OHN A SHCROFT , Attorney General, Respondents. 

# 

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

(A74-665-596)
Submitted: February 26, 2003

Decided: March 11, 2003
Before MOTZ, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL

Kenneth F. Liberstein, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Robert D.McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION

PER CURIAM: Mohamed Mohasin Alhag, a native and citizen of Yemen, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his applications for asylum and for withholding of deportation. We have reviewed the administrative record and find that substantial evidence supports the conclusion of the IJ and the Board that Alhag failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution necessary to qualify for relief from deportation. **1** See 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) (1994); **2** 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b) (2002). We conclude that the record supports the IJ’s conclusion that Alhag failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. The standard for withholding of deportation is "more stringent than that for asylum eligibility." Chen v. INS , 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir.1999). An applicant for withholding must demonstrate a clear probability of persecution. INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca , 480 U.S. 421, 430(1987). As Alhag has failed to establish refugee status, he cannot satisfy the higher standard for withholding of deportation. We accordingly deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

**1** Alhag does not argue past persecution to this court.

**2** We note that 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) was repealed by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub. L. No. 104-128, 110 Stat. 3009 (IIRIRA), effective April 1, 1997. Because this case was in transition at the time the IIRIRA was passed, § 1105a(a)(4) is still applicable here under the terms of the transitional rules contained in § 309(c) of the IIRIRA. 2 A LHAG v. INS
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 11.1


                 STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATIONS OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


<TABLE>
<S>                                              <C>                      <C>

YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997:

   Net earnings                                                             $4,449,163
                                                                            ==========
   Average number of common
         shares outstanding                        3,435,331
                                                   =========

   Basic earnings per share                                                 $     1.30
                                                                            ==========
   Average number of common and
          common equivalent shares                 3,482,745
                                                   =========
   Diluted earnings per share                                               $     1.28
                                                                            ==========
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996:

   Net earnings                                                             $2,055,929
                                                                            ==========
   Average number of common
         shares outstanding                        3,420,852
                                                   =========
   Basic earnings per share                                                 $     0.60
                                                                            ==========
   Average number of common and
         common equivalent shares                  3,461,640
                                                   =========
   Diluted earnings per share                                               $     0.59
                                                                            ==========

YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995:

   Net earnings                                                             $3,960,181
                                                                            ==========
   Average number of common
      shares outstanding                           3,415,196
                                                   =========
   Basic earnings per share                                                 $     1.16
                                                                            ==========
   Average number of common and
         common equivalent shares                  3,434,161
                                                   =========
   Diluted earnings per share                                               $     1.15
                                                                            ==========
</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

TRACY BOWEN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:20cv5823-TKW-EMT

CENTURION OF FLORIDA,

LLC, and MHM HEALTH

PROFESSIONALS, LLC,

Defendants.

__________________________/

ORDER PLACING CASE IN ABEYANCE

Based on Plaintiff’s notice of settlement (Doc. 26), it is ORDERED that this 

case is placed in abeyance, and the parties shall file a status report 30 days from the 

date of this Order (and every 30 days thereafter) if a stipulation of dismissal is not 

filed by then.

DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of June, 2021.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05823-TKW-EMT Document 27 Filed 06/10/21 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of EntreMetrix Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Scott W. Absher, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

 (1)         The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 

| Dated:  August 20, 2007 | /s/Scott W. Absher   |
|-------------------------|----------------------|
|                    | By:  Scott W. Absher |
|                    | Its:  President      |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to EntreMetrix Corporation and will be retained by EntreMetrix Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
12.505 Applicability of certain laws to

contracts for the acquisition of COTS items.

COTS items are a subset of commercial products. Therefore, any laws listed in sections 12.503 and

12.504 are also inapplicable or modified in their applicability to contracts or subcontracts for the

acquisition of COTS items. In addition, the following laws are not applicable to contracts for the

acquisition of COTS items:

(a)

(1) The portion of 41 U.S.C. 8302 , American Materials Required for Public Use, paragraph (a)(1)

that reads “substantially all from articles, materials, or supplies mined, produced, or manufactured

in the United States,” Buy American—Supplies, domestic content test, except as provided in

25.101(a)(2)(ii) (see 52.225-1 and 52.225-3).

(2)The portion of 41 U.S.C. 8303, Contracts for Public Works, paragraph (a)(2) that reads

“substantially all from articles, materials, or supplies mined, produced, or manufactured in the

United States,” Buy American—Construction Materials, domestic content test, except as provided in

25.201(b)(2)(ii)(see 52.225-9 and 52.225-11).

(b) 42 U.S.C. 69 62(c)(3)(A), Certification and Estimate of Percentage of Recovered Material.

(c) Compliance Plan and Certification Requirement, section 1703 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239), Title XVII, Ending trafficking in

Government Contracting (see 52.222-50(h) and 52.222-56).

Parent topic: Subpart 12.5 - Applicability of Certain Laws to the Acquisition of Commercial

Products, Commercial Services and Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf Items
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                     CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements of
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal
Procedures) of the United States Code and shall not be relied on by any person
for any other purpose.

      The undersigned, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Orion HealthCorp,
Inc. (the "small business issuer"), hereby certifies as follows:

      The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the small business issuer (the
"Report"), which accompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and all information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the small
business issuer.

Dated this 13th day of May, 2005.

/s/ Terrence L. Bauer
----------------------------------------------
Terrence L. Bauer, Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the small business issuer and
will be retained by the small business issuer and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 3:98-cr-00016-RV   Document 74   Filed 07/20/07   Page 1 of 1
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T S E L V IN V IL L E D A M O N R O Y , a. k. a. S el v i n A rm an d o V i l l ed a-M o n ro y, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 73356 A ge nc yN o. A 099- 529- 282 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ay15, 2012 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , G R A B E R , an dM . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. S el vi n V i l l eda M on roy, nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f G uat em al a, pet i t i on s f or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng



# FI LED MA Y22 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 73356 2 of r e m ova l . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f or s ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e th e a g e n c y ’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s . A

f ri yi e v . H older , 613 F . 3d 924, 931 ( 9th C i r . 2010) . W e gr antthe pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w , a nd w e r e m and. T h e a g e n c yd e n ie dr e lie f o n th e s o le b a s is th a t V ille d aM o n r o yf a ile dto show the go vernm entw as un w i l l i ng or un abl e t o p rot ec thi m . S ub st ant i alevi dence doe s nots upportthi s f

i ndi ng i n l i ghtof

V i l l e daM onr oy ’ s t e s t i m onyr e gar di ng the m ur de rof

hi s gr andpar e nt s , the m ur de rof hi s f a the ra nd the s ubs e que nta tt a c k on V ille d aM o n r o yb yth e s a m e in d iv idu a ls . Se e i d. a t9 3 1 - 3 2 . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we r e m a n df o rf u rth e rp r o c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith th is d is p o s itio n . See I N S v. V en tu ra , 53 7 U . S . 12 , 16 -18 (20 02 ) ( per c uri am ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W GR AN T E D; RE MAND E D.