alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 14th day of November, 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.
#### §§ 4279.262-4279.264 [Reserved]
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS 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 Comverge, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Robert M. Chiste, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant            to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), that:

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

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

 

|                                            |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ Robert M. Chiste                            |
| Robert M. Chiste                                |
| Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer |
| March 10, 2009                                  |

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Comverge, Inc. and will be retained by Comverge, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]

 

 

----
§ 3201.147 Traffic and zone marking paints. ( a ) *Definition.* Traffic and zone marking paints are products that are formulated and marketed for marking and striping parking lots, roads, streets, highways, or other traffic surfaces including, but not limited to, curbs, crosswalks, driveways, sidewalks, and airport runways.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The Federal preferred procurement product must have a minimum biobased content of at least 30 percent, which shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the total organic carbon in the finished product.
( c ) *Preference compliance date.* No later than July 6, 2020, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased traffic and zone marking paints. By that date, Federal agencies responsible for drafting or reviewing specifications for products to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased traffic and zone marking paints.
[84 FR 32021, July 5, 2019]
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has det ermined t hat this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-60077 Summary Calendar

RAY ALEXANDER GILBERT, Petitioner-Appellant,

VERSUS

JAMES V. ANDERSON, SUPERINTENDENT, MISSISSIPPI STATE PENITENTIARY, Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Mississippi

(3:93-CV-525-LN) May 15, 1997
Before WISDOM, KING, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ray Alexander Gilbert, Mississippi state prisoner # 69516, appeals the dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Gilbert argues that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise a speedy-trial defense on his behalf. He further alleges that, as a result of this2

failure, his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. A valid guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional defects, including an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, unless the ineffective assistance claim affects the voluntary nature of the plea. Smith v. Estelle , 711 F.2d 677, 682 (5th Cir. 1983). If a defendant enters a guilty plea on the advice of counsel, whether the plea was voluntary and knowing turns on whether the advice rendered was within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases. Hill v. Lockhart , 474 U.S. 52, 56 (1985). To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must prove that his counsel’s performance was both deficient and prejudicial to him. Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). In the context of a guilty plea, the defendant must show that, but for his counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted upon going to trial. Hill , 474 U.S. at 57- 58; Joseph v. Butler , 838 F.2d 786, 791 (5th Cir. 1988). The record shows that Gilbert was facing a life sentence for murder, a 20-year sentence for parole violations, and a 30-year sentence for possession of cocaine. Gilbert’s counsel testified that he thought the proposed plea agreement was a good deal. He further indicated that, in his judgment, a speedy trial defense was unlikely to succeed and would only jeopardize the proposed plea agreement. Counsel’s advice that Gilbert accept the proposed plea agreement was a strategic choice that was within3

counsel’s professional judgment. “Strategic choices made after thorough investigation of facts and law are virtually unchallengeable”. Black v. Collins , 962 F.2d 394, 401 (5th Cir. 1992). Gilbert has shown neither deficiency nor prejudice as required by Strickland . The district court’s dismissal of Gilbert’s petition for habeas corpus is AFFIRMED
. Finally, the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel for Gilbert. See Schwander v. Blackburn , 750 F.2d 494, 502 (5th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, the motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED
.
Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

IOU CENTRAL, INC.,

d/b/a IOU FINANCIAL INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20-cv-265-MW/MJF

ADMIRAL PROPERTY RESTORATION 

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

/

ORDER

On October 5, 2020, Plaintiff commenced this action against four Defendants: 

Admiral Property Restoration Inc.; Superior Contracting and Restoration Inc.; 

Bradley Douglass; and Susan Douglass. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff subsequently served the 

Defendants. Defendant Bradley Douglass, proceeding pro se, filed an 

Answer/Motion to Dismiss on behalf of each of the corporate Defendants, Admiral 

Property Restoration and Superior Contracting and Restoration. (Docs. 9, 10). Each 

of these pleadings is deficient as discussed below. Therefore, the court will provide 

Defendants an opportunity to correct the deficiency.

I. DISCUSSION

It is “well established that a corporation is an artificial entity that can act only 

through agents, cannot appear pro se, and must be represented by counsel.”

Case 5:20-cv-00265-MW-MJF Document 11 Filed 11/10/20 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Palazzo v. Gulf Oil Corp., 764 F.2d 1381, 1385 (11th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added); 

Harrison v. Wahatoyas, L.L.C., 253 F.3d 552, 556-57 (10th Cir. 2001) (discussing a 

limited liability corporation and stating “[a]s a general matter, a corporation or other 

business entity can only appear in court through an attorney and not through a nonattorney corporate officer appearing pro se.”). “The general rule applies even where 

the person seeking to represent the corporation is its president and major 

stockholder.” Palazzo, 764 F.2d at 1385 citing (In re Las Colinas Dev. Corp., 585 

F.2d 7 (1st Cir. 1978)). 

In other words, Mr. Douglass’s Answers and Motions to Dismiss filed on 

behalf of Admiral Property Restoration Inc. and Superior Contracting and 

Restoration Inc. are deficient. This court, however, will provide the two corporate 

Defendants time to find an attorney and answer the complaint.

II. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Defendants Admiral Property Restoration Inc. and Superior 

Contracting and Restoration Inc.’s respective motions to dismiss (Docs. 9, 10) are 

DENIED without prejudice because they were not made properly by counsel for 

these entities.

2. Defendants Admiral Property Restoration Inc. and Superior 

Contracting and Restoration Inc. are given THIRTY DAYS from the date of this 

Case 5:20-cv-00265-MW-MJF Document 11 Filed 11/10/20 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

order to retain counsel and have a Notice of Appearance filed by the same. Counsel 

for Admiral Property Restoration Inc. and Superior Contracting and Restoration Inc. 

shall have TWENTY-ONE DAYS from filing of its attorney’s Notice of 

Appearance to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s complaint.

3. Defendants Susan Douglass and Bradley Douglass may proceed with 

or without an attorney.

SO ORDERED this 10th day of November, 2020.

/s/ Michael J. Frank

Michael J. Frank

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:20-cv-00265-MW-MJF Document 11 Filed 11/10/20 Page 3 of 3
2006-0539.

#### Herbert v. Porter.

Seneca App. No. 13-05-15, 165 Ohio App.3d 217, 2006-Ohio-355.

O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., would accept the appeal on Proposition of Law No. II only.
(114 App. Div. 754)

#### In re LOWENGUTH’S ESTATE.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

July 12, 1906.)

1. Appeal—Appealable Order.

An order overruling objections to the jurisdiction of the court is not final, and does not involve a substantial right, jurisdiction not having been exercised, and therefore is not appealable.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 2, Cent. Dig. Appeal and Error, §§ 648.]

2. Costs—Appeal—Dismissal on Court’s Own Motion.

An appeal from an unappealable order will be dismissed, without costs; the question of its appealability not having been raised by the parties. [Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 13, Cent. Dig. Costs, §§ 877-883.]

Appeal from Surrogate’s Court, Monroe County.

In the matter of the estate of Clara.Lowenguth, deceased. From an order overruling the objections of Emil J. Lowenguth and another, administrators, to the jurisdiction of the court to hear the proofs of the petitioners, Christopher C. Werner and another, praying that the surrogate fix the value of their services as attorneys rendered to the estate, the administrators appeal. Dismissed.

Argued before McLENNAN, P. J., and SPRING, WILLIAMS, NASH, and KRUSE, JJ.

Hugh J. O’Brien, for appellants.

C. C. Werner, for respondents.

NASH, J.

The order is not appealable. It disallows and overrules the objections of the administrators to the jurisdiction of the court, but is not final, as jurisdiction has not been exercised, and therefore does not involve a substantial right. Matter of Soule, 46 Hun, 661; Matter of Phalen, 51 Hun, 208, 4 N. Y. Supp. 408; Matter of Pearsall (Sup.) 4 N. Y. Supp. 365; Matter of Burnett, 15 N. Y. St. Rep. 116,

Neither party having raised the question of the appealability of the order, the appeal should be dismissed, without costs.

Appeal dismissed, without costs to either party. All concur.
#  

#  

**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

 

**Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

 

The undersigned executiveofficer of Alliance Bancorp, Inc, of Pennsylvania (the “Registrant”), herebycertifies that the Registrant’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained thereinfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Registrant.

 

 

 
| Date: March 24, 2008 |   | /s/ Dennis D. Cirucci   |   |
|---------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|                      |   | Dennis D. Cirucci       |   |
|                      |   | President and           |   |
|                      |   | Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

----
#### § 500.13 Nondiscrimination.

The USNA is subject to the policy of nondiscrimination in programs or activities conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture as set forth in 7 CFR part 15d.
5/12/2016 Hagerstown Regional Airport to Hagerstown Community College ­ Google Maps

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/HAGERSTOWN+airport,+Showalter+Road,+Hagerstown,+MD/Hagerstown+Community+College,+11400+Robinwood+Dr,+Hagerstown,+MD+21742/@39.667522,­77.7250513,... 1/2

Imagery ©2016 Google, Map data ©2016 Google 1 mi

22 min

10.6 miles

via US-11 S/Pennsylvania Ave

20 min without trafἀ渄c

25 min

14.0 miles

via MD-62 S/Little Antietam Rd

23 min without trafἀ渄c

Hagerstown Regional Airport to Hagerstown Community College Drive 10.6 miles, 22 min
#### §§ 4285.26-4285.45 [Reserved]
#### § 51.1414 Uniform in color.

*Uniform in color* means that the shells do not show sufficient variation in color to detract from the general appearance of the lot and that 95 percent or more of the kernels in the lot have skin color within the range of one or two color classifications.
#### § 48.4 Destroying or dumping.

Any person receiving produce in interstate commerce or in the District of Columbia for or on behalf of another who, without good and sufficient cause, shall destroy or abandon, discard as refuse, or dump any produce, directly or indirectly or through collusion with any person, shall be considered to have violated the Act.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:96cr57/RV

CHARLES HARRISON

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Senior Judge Roger Vinson on August 25, 2005

Motion/Pleadings: Petition pursuant to Audita Querelo or in alternative Writ under the All Writs

Act 28 U.S.C. 1651(a)(b) 

Filed by Defendant on 8/22/2005 Doc.# 354 

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

 Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

 s/Jerry Marbut

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Jerry Marbut

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 25th day of

 August , 2005, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) See order at doc. 352. 

 /s/ Roger Vinson

ROGER VINSON

United States District Judge

Case 3:96-cr-00057-RV-MD Document 355 Filed 08/26/05 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5
<MULTIPLIER>                           1000
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                           JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       7,465
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                              137,380
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,704
<INVENTORY>                                151,976
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           329,074
<PP&E>                                     518,819
<DEPRECIATION>                             141,691
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,053,608
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      184,694
<BONDS>                                    380,467
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                       434
<OTHER-SE>                                 393,482
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,053,608
<SALES>                                  1,119,898
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         1,119,898
<CGS>                                      713,686
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            1,014,250
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,992
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          20,383
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             83,398
<INCOME-TAX>                                32,533
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         50,865
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (633)
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                50,232
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 1.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 1.20
        


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Vincent Bean, Appellant.

Order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated February 9, 1966, denying defendant’s motion for resentencing, reversed, on the law, and motion remitted to the court below for the purpose of taking further proof (1) as to the dates of the commission of the crimes for which defendant was convicted in Alabama, which crimes resulted in the judgments of conviction by reason of which defendant was arraigned as a multiple offender in the court below, and (2) as to whether, under Alabama Law, the indictments for those crimes were or could have been consolidated. (Cf. *People ex rel. Janosko*v. *Fay,*6 N Y 2d 82; *People*v. *Taylor,*16 A D 2d 944, affd. 13 N Y 2d 675.) Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 35.1
            SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                               GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC
   GMACM HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 2006-HE3 (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of GMAC Mortgage,  LLC, as servicer
(the  "Servicer")  pursuant to the Servicing  Agreement,  dated as of August 30,
2006, (as amended from time to time, the "Agreement"),  among GMAC Mortgage, LLC
(formerly GMAC Mortgage Corporation),  as servicer, GMACM Home Equity Loan Trust
2006-HE3,  as the issuing  entity,  and JPMorgan Chase Bank,  N.A., as indenture
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:    Executive Vice President
From: HolmesAems@aol.com [ mailto:HolmesAems@aol.com ]

Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2014 2:46 PM

To: Fruh, Steve; Cozzie, David; Jones, Toni; Barnett, Keith; Nizich, Sharon

Cc: tharman@cement.org ; satish.sheth@cemex.com

Subject: Meeting with PCA on Wednesday

All,

In preparation for the meeting this coming Wednesday at your offices, I have attached a proposed

agenda. Let me know if you have any additions. Also, I am hoping you can set up a call

- in number for a

few PCA members that are not able to attend in person. Lastly, here is the list of attendees.

 Curtis Lesslie, Ash Grove

 Jay Wi llis, Titan America

 Satish Sheth, Cemex

 Tom Harman, PCA

 John Holmes, AEMS

 Brett Lindsay, Phoenix Cement

 Michael Pelan, LaFarge

 Tim Matz, Lehigh Hanson

See you Wednesday

John HolmesProposed Agenda for the September 17 th Meeting between PCA members and EPA on Corrections and

Clarifications of NSPS, NESHAP and CISWI Requirements

NSPS and NESHAP

Key Discussion Topics

 Startup and Shutdown Control Device Requirements

 NSPS crosslink to NESHAP on opacity monitoring for trans fer points

 Reinstating prior NSPS limits, without CPMS applying retroactively

 NESHAP cooler stack flow monitoring

 Status and concerns with PS

- 18

Quick review of the remaining items on the PCA list of July 7 th

Action items coming out of the discussion.

CI SWI

Key Discussion Topics:

 Reconsideration of the PM limit

 Startup and Shutdown requirements

 Requirements for commingled sources

Quick review of the remaining items on the PCA list of July 7 th

Action items coming out of the discussion.
§ 51.2278 U.S. Commercial. “U.S. Commercial” consists of portions of walnut kernels which meet the requirements of U.S. No. 1 grade, except for increased tolerances. (See § 51.2280.) ( a ) Color of walnuts based on the USDA Walnut Color Chart shall be not darker than the “amber” classification. There are no color requirements for “red” color. Color may be specified in connection with the grade in terms of one of the color classifications in the USDA Walnut Color Chart or “red” color. “Red” color shall not be mixed with “extra light,” “light,” “light amber,” or “amber” colors. (See §§ 51.2281 and 51.2282.)
( b ) Size shall be specified in connection with this grade in terms of one of the size classifications. (See §§ 51.2284 and 51.2285.)
[23 FR 10354, Dec. 25, 1958. Redesignated at 42 FR 32514, June 27, 1977, and further redesignated at 46 FR 63203, Dec. 31, 1981, as amended at 82 FR 39657, Aug. 22, 2017]
28.204 Alternatives in lieu of corporate or individual sureties.       (a) Any person required to furnish a bond to the Government may furnish any of the types of security listed in 28.204-1 through 28.204-3 instead of a corporate or individual surety for the bond. When any of those types of security are deposited, a statement shall be incorporated in the bond form pledging the security in lieu of execution of the bond form by corporate or individual sureties. The contractor shall execute the bond forms as the principal. Agencies shall establish safeguards to protect against loss of the security and shall return the security or its equivalent to the contractor when the bond obligation has ceased.                                          (b) Upon written request by any contractor securing a performance or payment bond by any of the types of security listed in 28.204-1 through 28.204-3, the contracting officer may release a portion of the security only when the conditions allowing the partial release of security in 28.203-3(c) are met. The contractor shall, as a condition of the partial release, furnish an affidavit agreeing that the release of such security does not relieve the contractor of its obligations under the bond(s).                                          (c) The contractor may satisfy a requirement for bond security by furnishing a combination of the types of security listed in 28.204-1 through 28.204-3 or a combination of bonds supported by these types of security and additional surety bonds under 28.202 or 28.203. During the period for which a bond supported by security is required, the contractor may substitute one type of security listed in 28.204-1 through 28.204-3 for another, or may substitute, in whole or combination, additional surety bonds under 28.202 or 28.203.    **28.204-1 United States bonds or notes.****28.204-2 Certified or cashier’s checks, bank drafts, money orders, or currency.****28.204-3 Irrevocable letter of credit.****28.204-4 Contract clause.****Parent topic:** Subpart 28.2 - Sureties and Other Security for Bonds