alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 GTDATA Corporation Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
the quarter ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert Genesi, Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1) 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly
presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, another
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to GTDATA Corporation and will be
retained by GTDATA Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

                                /s/ Robert Genesi
                                --------------------
                                Robert Genesi
                                Chief Executive Officer
                                (Principal Executive Officer)

August 21, 2003
§ 602.5 FCA response to requests for records. ( a ) *Response time.* Within 20 business days of receiving your request, the FOIA Officer will tell you whether we have granted or denied it. If you send your request to the wrong address, the 20-day response time will not begin until the FOIA Officer receives your request.
( b ) *Extension of response time.* In “unusual circumstances,” the FOIA Officer may extend the 20-day response time for up to 10 more business days by telling you in writing why we need more time and the date we will mail you our response. As used in this subpart, “unusual circumstances” means our need to: ( 1 ) Search for and get the requested records from field offices or other locations;
( 2 ) Search for, get, and review many records identified in a single request;
( 3 ) Consult with another Federal agency having a substantial interest in the request; or
( 4 ) Consult with two or more FCA offices having a substantial interest in the request.
( c ) *Referrals.* If you ask for records we have that another Federal agency originated, we will refer the request to the originating agency and tell you about the referral. If you should have sent your request to another Federal agency, we will refer the request to that agency and so advise you.
§ 367.6 Causes for exclusion. The FDIC may exclude a contractor, in accordance with the procedures set forth in this part, upon a finding that: ( a ) The contractor has been convicted of any felony;
( b ) The contractor has been removed from, or prohibited from participating in the affairs of, any insured depository institution pursuant to any final enforcement action by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or the FDIC or their successors;
( c ) The contractor has demonstrated a pattern or practice of defalcation;
( d ) The contractor has caused a substantial loss to Deposit Insurance Fund (or any predecessor deposit insurance fund);
( e ) The contractor has failed to disclose, pursuant to 12 CFR 366.6, a material fact to the FDIC;
( f ) The contractor has failed to disclosed any material adverse change in the representations and certifications provided to FDIC under 12 CFR 366.6;
( g ) The contractor has miscertified its status as a minority and/or woman owned business (MWOB);
( h ) The contractor has a conflict of interest that was not waived by the Ethics Counselor or designee;
( i ) The contractor has been subject to a final enforcement action by any federal financial institution regulatory agency, or has stipulated to such action;
( j ) The contractor is debarred from participating in other federal programs;
( k ) The contractor has been convicted of, or subject to a civil judgment for: ( 1 ) Commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public or private agreement or transaction, or conspiracy to do the same;
( 2 ) Violation of federal or state antitrust statutes, including those proscribing price fixing between competitors, allocation of customers between competitors, and bid rigging, or conspiracy to do the same;
( 3 ) Commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, receiving stolen property, making false claims, obstructing of justice, or conspiracy to do the same;
( 4 ) Commission of any other offense indicating a breach of trust, dishonesty or lack of integrity, or conspiracy to do the same;
( l ) The contractor's performance under previous contract(s) with FDIC or RTC has resulted in: ( 1 ) The FDIC or RTC declaring such contract(s) to be in default; or
( 2 ) The termination of such contract(s) for poor performance; or
( 3 ) A violation of the terms of a contract that would have resulted in a default or termination of the contract for poor performance if that violation had been discovered during the course of the contract; or
( m ) The contractor has engaged in any conduct: ( 1 ) Indicating a breach of trust, dishonesty, or lack of integrity that seriously and directly affects its ability to meet standards of present responsibility required of an FDIC contractor; or
( 2 ) So serious or compelling in nature that it adversely affects the ability of a contractor to meet the minimum ethical standards required by 12 CFR part 366.
[61 FR 68560, Dec. 30, 1996, as amended at 71 FR 20528, Apr. 21, 2006]
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DAURIANNE GORDON-BROWN,

Appellant,

v.

DELVIN JONES,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-780

[September 22, 2021]

Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth 

Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Michael Kaplan, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

DVCE20-004004.

Daurianne Gordon-Brown, Miami, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We deny appellant’s motion for rehearing and clarification in response 

to orders filed on July 29, 2021, but withdraw our opinion dated July 29, 

2021, and issue the following in its place:

Affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 

1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“In appellate proceedings the decision of a trial 

court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the 

appellant to demonstrate error. . . . Without a record of the trial 

proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying 

factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not 

supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.”).

GROSS, CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.

* * *
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3062 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 3062

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 14, 2003

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend the Mineral Leasing Act to authorize the Secretary of the 
 Interior to issue separately, for the same area, a lease for tar sand 
          and a lease for oil and gas, 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. COMBINED HYDROCARBON LEASING.

    (a) Special Provisions Regarding Leasing.--Section 17(b)(2) of the 
Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 226(b)(2)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(2)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(B) The Secretary may issue under this Act for the same area, 
separately--
            ``(i) a lease for exploration for and extraction of tar 
        sand; and
            ``(ii) a lease for exploration for and development of oil 
        and gas.
    ``(C) A lease issued under subparagraph (B)(ii) shall not be 
further subject to the Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981 (30 
U.S.C. 181 et seq.).
    ``(D) A lease issued for tar sand shall be issued using the same 
bidding process, annual rental, and posting period as a lease issued 
for oil and gas, except that the minimum acceptable bid required for a 
lease issued for tar sand shall be $2 per acre.
    ``(E) The Secretary may waive, suspend, or alter any requirement 
under section 26 that a permittee under a permit authorizing 
prospecting for tar sand must exercise due diligence, to promote any 
resource covered by a combined hydrocarbon lease.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 17(b)(1)(B) of the Mineral 
Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 226(b)(1)(B)) is amended in the second sentence 
by inserting ``, subject to paragraph (2)(B),'' after ``the 
Secretary''.

SEC. 2. REGULATIONS.

    Within 45 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
Secretary of the Interior shall issue final regulations to implement 
this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 8, 2003.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6682

THOMAS M. TULLY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NICOLE M. SPICER, Frederick County Virginia Commonwealth Attorney; MELISSA RICE, Director of Victim Witness Program; FRED D. HILDEBRAND, Supervisor of Northwestern Regional Adult Detention Center; GENE BOYCE, Telephone overseer at Northwestern Regional Adult Detention Center; LISA HOSKINS, Convicted liar in Virginia Court System, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:07-cv-00188-SGW) Submitted: August 23, 2007 Decided: August 30, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas M. Tully, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Thomas M. Tully appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Tully v. Spicer , No. 7:07-cv-00188-SGW (W.D. Va. Apr. 19, 2007). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### § 622.6 Opportunity for informal settlement.

Any interested party may at any time submit to the Board for consideration written offers or proposals for settlement of a proceeding, without prejudice to the rights of the parties. No offer or proposal shall be admissible into evidence over the objection of any party in any hearing in connection with such proceeding. The foregoing provisions of this section shall not preclude settlement of any proceeding through the regular adjudicatory process by the filing of an answer as provided in § 622.5(c), or by submission of the case to the presiding officer on a stipulation of facts and an agreed order.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 292 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 292

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend title 4, United States Code, to add National Korean War 
  Veterans Armistice Day to the list of days on which the flag should 
                        especially be displayed.

    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 ``Korean War Veterans Recognition Act 
of 2003''.

SEC. 2. DISPLAY OF FLAG ON NATIONAL KOREAN WAR VETERANS ARMISTICE DAY.

     Section 6(d) of title 4, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting ``National Korean War Veterans Armistice Day, July 27;'' 
after ``July 4;''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 17, 2003.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
108th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 292

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To amend title 4, United States Code, to add National Korean War 
  Veterans Armistice Day to the list of days on which the flag should 
                        especially be displayed.
```
§ 611.1246 Filing of termination application and its contents. ( a ) *Filing of termination application.* Send us your termination application no later than 90 days after you send us notice of the stockholder vote approving the termination. Please send us an original and five copies of the termination application for review and approval. If you send us the termination application in electronic form, you must send us at least one hard copy with original signatures.
( b ) *Contents of termination application.* The application must contain: ( 1 ) A certified copy of the termination and reaffirmation resolutions;
( 2 ) A certification signed by the board of directors that the board continues to support the termination, there has been no material change to any of the information contained in the plan of termination or information statement after the FCA approved the plan of termination, and there have not been any subsequent events that could have a material impact on any of the information in the plan of termination or the termination; and
( 3 ) Any additional information that is required under this subpart, that we request or that your board of directors wishes to submit in support of the application.
#### Commonwealth ex rel. McNeair v. Banmiller

*Joseph McNeair,*p. p., for petitioner.

*Juanita K. Stout,*Assistant District Attorney, and *Victor H. Blanc,*District Attorney, contra.

May 16, 1957.

Sloane, J.,

Matters not raised below cannot be invoked on appeal unless the matter involves that degree of error so fundamental as to vitiate the whole proceeding below: Commonwealth v. Schultz, 170 Pa. Superior Ct. 504, cert. den. 344 U. S. 868. In this petition for a writ of habeas corpus, relator would have us go one step further.' He would have us consider in this petition allegations of error which could not be raised even through appeal.

*786Relator contends that his insanity at the time of the undenied homicide, and at trial, render his imprisonment illegal. This is the first time that insanity has been raised in this case. It is, of course, a recognized defense in this jurisdiction (Commonwealth v. Mosler, 4 Pa. 264, as reaffirmed in Commonwealth v. Moon, 383 Pa. 18)), but one which may be asserted at trial. A petition for habeas corpus is not the place to dispose of this question. Relator is late.

Relator further complains of the trial court’s admission into evidence of a prior conviction of defendant. For this question the legislature has provided a ready answer. Evidence of prior convictions is admissible in first degree murder prosecutions in order not to determine guilt or innocence but as an aid to the jury in fixing their penalty at life or death: Act of May 14, 1925, P. L. 759; Commonwealth v. Cannon, 386 Pa. 62, cert. den. 352 U. S. 898. The court below properly instructed the jury as to the purpose of the offered proof, and as to the limit of purpose the law places on the jury’s consideration of a prior conviction.

This petition presents the common allegation that court-appointed counsel was incompetent in the conduct of the defense. The merit or failing of this complaint must stand on the record: United States v. Wight, 176 F. 2d 376, cert. den. 338 U. S. 950; Commonwealth ex rel. Smilley v. Claudy, 172 Pa. Superior Ct. 247. See also Commonwealth ex rel. Carey v. Prison Keeper, 370 Pa. 604. The testimony of relator’s trial shows to the contrary, that counsel was vigorous in his effort to reduce the crime to murder in the second degree.

And so did the prosecutor fairly and ably present the evidence. This dismisses another of relator’s allegations of error, the antagonism of the trial assistant district attorney. The record fails to disclose this.

*787Relator had a fair trial. The court’s charge was an unbiased exposition of the law involved. The record discloses no errors so fundamental as to warrant the granting of this petition.

Petition denied.
51

•HR 3289 EH

1 payment under section 8003(a)(1)(B) of such Act, but due

2 to the deployment of both parents or legal guardians, or

3 due to the death of a military parent or legal guardian

4 while on active duty, are no longer eligible under such sec5 tion, shall be considered as eligible students under such

6 section, provided such students remain in average daily

7 attendance at the same school that they attended prior

8 to their change in eligibility status.

9 SEC. 3004. None of the funds made available by this

10 Act may be provided to any unit of the security forces

11 of a foreign country participating with coalition forces in

12 Afghanistan or Iraq if the Secretary of State or the Sec13 retary Defense has credible evidence that such unit has

14 committed gross violations of human rights, unless the ap15 propriate Secretary determines and reports to the Com16 mittees on Appropriations that the government of such

17 country is taking effective measures to bring the respon18 sible members of the security forces unit to justice: Pro19 vided, That nothing in this section shall be construed to

20 withhold funds made available by this Act from any unit

21 of the security forces of a foreign country not credibly al22 leged to be involved in gross violations of human rights:

23 Provided further, That in the event that funds are withheld

24 from any unit pursuant to this section, the appropriate

25 Secretary shall promptly inform the foreign government
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

** United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 2, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40423

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus 

PORFIRIO TORRES-RIVAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:05-CR-1819-ALL

--------------------

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Porfirio TorresRivas (Torres) preserves for further review his contention that

his sentence is unreasonable because this court’s post-Booker**

rulings have effectively reinstated the mandatory Sentencing

Guideline regime condemned in Booker. Torres concedes that his

argument is foreclosed by United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511

(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005), and its progeny,

which have outlined this court’s methodology for reviewing
No. 06-40423

-2-

sentences for reasonableness. Torres also preserves for further

review his contention that his sentence is unreasonable because

the illegal reentry guideline is unduly severe. Torres concedes

that this argument is foreclosed by United States v. Tzep-Mejia,

461 F.3d 522, 527 (5th Cir. 2006), which held that “Booker does

not give sentencing courts the discretion to impose a nonGuideline sentence based on the courts’ disagreement with

Congressional and Sentencing Commission policy.” Finally, Torres

raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v.

United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal

offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is

GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Adelphia Communications Corporation ("Adelphia") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Vanessa A. Wittman, Chief Financial Officer of Adelphia, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



Date:
November 4, 2005

| |  | /s/VANESSA A. WITTMANVanessa A. Wittman Chief Financial
Officer
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks