alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32

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 Archon Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Paul W. Lowden, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and Grant L. Siler, Principal Accounting 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 2003, that to our knowledge:



| | (i) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|Dated: February 22, 2009            
|                                    
|/s/    Paul W. Lowden               
|Paul W. Lowden                      
|Chairman of the Board, President and
|Principal Executive Officer         
|                                    
|/s/    Grant L. Siler               
|Grant L. Siler                      
|Principal Accounting Officer        

This certification accompanies the above-described Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to

Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by

such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Hi, My name is Janelle Wright. I am from Powder Springs, GA and am a third-year at the University.oLY!.rginia stydying Environmental Science. Iam also a sustainability advocate for my school and Iam currentlyinterning with Environmental Georgia. Conserving ourexcessive energy use has been importantto me for a while now, and Itry to encourage those around me to do the same. I was emerged in the environment as a long time member ofGirl Scouts and have felt some sortof obligation to share my passion since then.

At school, our sustainability club has made a variety ofefforts to limit Carbon emissions, practice energyefficiency, and save energy. Ithinkthatthe strong participation in the events thatwe organize show a passion and commitment towards some change. <Dorm Energy Race>The Clean Power Plan is something that
my generation cares about because we have access to the facts, and though we know that changecannothappen over night, change must happen, especially in our lifetime.

Identifying individual impacts humans have is one simple step thatwith a unified involvement can be extremely beneficial but Ibelieve that beginning to take action starting with our power plants would lessen our footprint astoundingly. Ihave heard the opposition to the Plan make thecase thatthe EPA is perhaps not considering a complete and final solution and thatthe cost is a heavy burden. To this Iwould saythatthe primary cause for our situation is our dependency on these polluting energy sources time and time again, only to consider renewable energy when it seems convenient. The Clean Power Plan is one that will take time and for changes to be made Iwould like to see the EPA seta template ofthe complete plan for Georgia, detailing specific changes that mustbe made to invoke change. The
current plan is a start, butaction is key.

The Clean Power Plan would also in turn improve the health ofmillions of Americans, particularlythose who in our society are marginalized and atthe greatest need for cleaner air. With this, though perhaps not immediate, a reduction in C02 emissions could decrease doctor visits to treatthe many types ofillnesses thatare directly linked to poorair quality.

Earlier this summer at Environment Georgia we were working to renewthe Land and Water Conservation Fund that helps keep Georgia's drinking water clean. I've noticed that those citizens that supportclean waterand enjoy using parks have shown a personal connection with the cause. Those who acceptthatglobal warming is and will continue to be a health threat, orthose with first-hand experience, have already established this connection to the plan. As we have heard, these numbers are alarmingly high, making it rare notto know or have met

someone who has been indirectly affected by the rise ofC02 emissions. It is now time for the Clean Power Plan to move forward. Thank You.
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of BNP Residential Properties, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, D.
Scott Wilkerson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 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, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




   /s/ D. Scott Wilkerson
--------------------------------------------
D. Scott Wilkerson
President and Chief Executive Officer

May 12, 2003

                                       25
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Diana Dimadi, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of AccuPoll Holding
Corp.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions);

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


May 20, 2005                                  /s/ Diana Dimadi
                                                --------------------------------
                                                  Diana Dimadi
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-2506

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Darron Van Hill lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines

____________ Submitted: April 1, 2020 Filed: April 6, 2020 [Unpublished]

____________ Before GRUENDER, BEAM, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Darron Van Hill appeals after he conditionally pleaded guilty to a firearms offense, and the district court 1 imposed a 24-month prison sentence. His counsel has

1 The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738

(1967), challenging the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court properly denied the motion. See United States v. Donnelly , 475 F.3d 946, 951 (8th Cir. 2007) (standard of review); see also United States v. Shackleford , 830 F.3d 751, 753 (8th Cir. 2016) (stating that probable cause to believe that an automobile contains contraband or evidence of criminal activity justifies the warrantless search of the automobile and seizure of the contraband). Finally, having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage                     *de novo,*                     or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.                

Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than December 28, 2010.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacqueline G. King, Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

                    1. Bigfork Bancshares, Inc., Bigfork, Minnesota; to engage,                     *de novo,*                     in extending credit and servicing loans, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(1) of Regulation Y.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 8, 2010.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2010-31241 Filed 12-13-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-88,857-01

EX PARTE REBECA RENTERIA, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 58-14-B(A) IN THE 25 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM GONZALES COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of injury to a child

and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed her conviction.

Renteria v. State, No. 13-15-00574-CR (Tex. App. Corpus Christi-Edinburg Aug. 3, 2017)(not

designated for publication).

Applicant contends that her trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request

payment for an expert, failing to hire a medical expert, failing to object from testimony from a

caseworker and the complainant’s foster mother, failing to properly prosecute a motion to suppress
2

and failing to investigate and present an adequate defensive theory. 

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle her to relief. Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson, 993 S.W.2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In these

circumstances, additional facts are needed. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294

(Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. The trial court

shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The

trial court may use any means set out in TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d). In the

appropriate case, the trial court may rely on its personal recollection. Id.

It appears that Applicant is represented by counsel. If the trial court elects to hold a hearing,

it shall determine if Applicant is represented by counsel, and if not, whether Applicant is indigent. 

If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether the

performance of Applicant’s trial counsel was deficient and, if so, whether counsel’s deficient

performance prejudiced Applicant. The trial court shall also make any other findings of fact and

conclusions of law that it deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claim for

habeas corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time must
3

be requested by the trial court and shall be obtained from this Court.

Filed: SEPTEMBER 12, 2018

Do not publish
H. Res. 609 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

November 8, 2017. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2201) to 

amend the Securities Act of 1933 to exempt certain microofferings from the registration requirements of such Act, and 

for other purposes. All points of order against consideration 

of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. 

All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. 

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 

bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without 

intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services; (2) the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by the Member designated 

in the report, which shall be in order without intervention of 

any point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable for the time specified in the report equally 

divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
2 

•HRES 609 EH 

and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### South & North Ala. Railroad Co. *v.*Schafner.

*Action against Railroad*Company, *for Inf try to Stock.*■

1. *Sufficiency of complaint, in averment of time and place.-*— -In an action against a railroad company, to recover damages for injuries to live stock caused by the defendant’s cars or locomotives, the complaint must, allege with reasonable certainty “ the time when and the place where the killing or injury occurred'” (Code, §1711); but, where the complaint does not show that the injury was caused by the defendant’s cars or locomotives, the statute does not apply,-and a complaint as at common law is sufficient.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Blount.

Tried before the Hon. James Aiken.

This action was brought by John Schafner against the appellant, a domestic corporation, and was commenced on the 17th February, 1885. In the original complaint, the plaintiff claimed “ one^hundred dollars as damages for negligently killing a valuable mule, the property of plaintiff, on the day of December, 1884and an amended complaint seems to have been filed, though'it is not mentioned in any minute-entry or judgment, alleging that the injury occurred ^on the 1st day of January, 1885.” The defendant demurred to the complaint, *“*because it does not show the time when the alleged injury occurredand “ because it does not allege the place where the alleged injury occurred.” The court overruled the demurrer, and judgment on verdict was rendered for the plaiutiff. The overruling of the demurrer is the only matter assigned as error.

Hamill & Lusk, for appellant.

CLOPTON, J.

The only assignment of error relates to the-overruling of a demurrer to the amended complaint. The assigned causes of demurrer are, that the complaint does not allege the time or place, when and where the injury occurred. In *East Tenn., Va.*& *Ga. R. R. Co. v. Carloss,*77 Ala. 443, it was held, that where suit is instituted to recover for damages to live stock or cattle of any kind, by locomotives or railroad cars in this State, the complaint must, under the- statute, allege with reasonable certainty “ the time when, and the place where *568the killing or injury:occurred.” The ruling relates to a suit brought under the statute, which is, in terms, restricted to an injury caused by *locomotives*or *railroad cars.*If the killing or injury is occasioned in any manner other than by a locomotive or cars, the statute is not applicable, and a complaint as at common law, without conforming to the requirements 'of the statute as to the averments of time and place, will be sufficient. The complaint does not allege that the mule was killed by the locomotive or cars of the defendant, and such is not a necessary implication. The demurrer was properly overruled on the causes assigned.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover, under the complaint as framed, if the evidence disclosed that the mule was in fact killed by the locomotive or cars, is a question not raised by the record, and which we do not decide. It does not appear from the record in what manner, or by what means, the killing occurred.

Affirmed,
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7307

EDDIE C. WILSON, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BERNARD SMITH, Warden; MARSHA BROADDUS, Director of Medical Services; MICHAEL MURRAY,

Hospital Administrator; PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, INCORPORATED,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-96-

2318-AMD)

Submitted: November 19, 1996 Decided: December 2, 1996

Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eddie C. Wilson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a federal inmate, appeals the district court's order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1994), amended by Prison Litigation Reform Act,

Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion and find that this appeal

is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. Wilson v. Smith, No. CA-96-2318-AMD (D. Md.

July 29, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### MANDERY, Appellant, v. MANDERY, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

May 27, 1914.)

Action by Julia M. A. Mandery against Joseph J. Mandery.

No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal to Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs. For former decision, see 146 N. Y. Supp. 1099.
|  
 
 
 

*Last revised: November 05, 1999*Please read this privacy and security noticeAdvanced (SAM-A)CONUS (SAM-C)FMS Financial Management    (SAM-CF)FMS Case Management (SAM-CM)CONUS Orientation (SAM-CO)FMS Logistics Customer    Support (SAM-CS)Contract Management - MET only (SAM-CT)Executive (SAM-E)Foreign Purchaser/ International    (SAM-F)Mobile Education Teams (SAM-MET)Planning and Resource Management Course    (E-IMET)Overseas/SAO (SAM-O)On-site (SAM-OS)Planning    and Resource Management (SAM-P)Training Officer/IMSO (SAM-TO)FY 2000 Schedule of CoursesApplication Information
  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|