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



Exhibit 32.0
  CERTIFICATION
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
    2002
    with respect to the annual report on
    Form 10-K
    for the Year Ended December 31, 2007
    1.
    The Companys annual report on
    Form 10-K
    for the year ended December 31, 2007, (the
    Form 10-K)
    fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
    of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
    Exchange Act); and2.
    Information contained in the
    Form 10-K
    fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
    condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: February 28, 2008

/s/  Thomas
    S.
    WuThomas
    S. Wu
    Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer   Date: February 28, 2008

/s/  Dennis
    WuDennis
    Wu
    Director, Executive Vice President and
    Chief Financial Officer   Form 10-K
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Capital Bank Corporation
(the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James A. Beck,
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, to my
knowledge 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.


-------------------------
James A. Beck
Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2003

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


                                      -30-
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Peter JOSEPH, Also Known as Pete Joseph, Appellant.

Nos. 13150, 13151.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued May 5, 1960.

Decided May 16, 1960.

Rehearing Denied June 6, 1960.

*505Stanford Shmukler, Philadelphia, Pa. ■(Jacob Kossman, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.

James Paul Dornberger, Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa. (Walter E. Alessandroni, U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., ■on the brief), for appellee.

Before KALODNER, HASTIE and FORMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

These appeals are from convictions on charges of willful failure to pay the special occupational tax on wagering and willful failure to file excise tax returns on wagers. We are satisfied that the guilt of the accused was adequately established at the trial and that the record reveals no reversible error.

Most of the issues presented on these appeals concern the issuance and execution of a search warrant which yielded important evidence against appellant. A principal objection challenges the use of hearsay evidence in determining probable cause for the issuance of the warrant. The propriety of this course is now clearly established by the decision of the Supreme Court in Jones v. United States, 1960, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697. Beyond the propriety of considering such hearsay, we are satisfied that the totality of the circumstances brought to the attention of the issuing officer made it reasonable for him to credit and believe the basic hearsay assertion that the place to be searched was being used for conducting a wagering business.

We have also considered that the search warrant authorized a daytime search and that the actual searching of the premises in question, which began about four o’clock in the afternoon, was not completed until after ten o'clock at night. However, the evidence does not show that the search made after nightfall was more than a reasonable continuation of the search which began in the afternoon. On the present record the conduct of the searching officers was within the authorization of the warrant.

No other point requires discussion. We do, however, make explicit our conclusion that, in the light of United States v. Kahriger, 1953, 345 U.S. 22, 73 S.Ct. 510, 97 L.Ed. 754, there is no merit in an attack which the appellant makes on the constitutionality of the wagering statute.

Conviction and sentence will be affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2 IDEAEDGE, INC. CERTIFICATION OF
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER 
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350
(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002) In connection with the Annual Report of IdeaEdge, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jonathan Shultz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.  Date:  December 23, 2009/s/ Jonathan ShultzJonathan ShultzChief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 31.1

                     CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT  TO SECTION 302
                      OF  THE  SARBANES-OXLEY  ACT  OF  2002


I, Anthony C. Dike, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report  on  Form  10-QSB of Meridian Holdings,
Inc.;

2. Based  on  my  knowledge,  this quarterly 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
quarterly report;

3. Based   on   my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and other financial
information  included  in  this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  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 we have:

  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be  designed  under our  supervision,  to  ensure  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 quarterly report is being
prepared;

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

   c) disclosed in this quarterly 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;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers 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   registrant's  board  of
directors  (or  persons  performing  the equivalent functions):

   a) all  significant  deficiencies  in  the  design  or  operation of internal
controls  which  could  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.


Date:    November 7,  2005

By:/s/ Anthony C. Dike
Anthony C. Dike
Chairman and CEO (Principal Executive & Financial  Officer)
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 MULTI-LINK TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending December 31, 2005, (the
"Report"), I, Kevin R. Keating, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
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:

1)    The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.


Date:  February 10, 2006

                                           /s/ Kevin R. Keating
                                           --------------------
                                           Chief Executive Officer
                                           and Chief Financial Officer






                                       22
EXHIBIT B 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE FOR REGION 21 

EDIFICIO OCHOA, 500 TANCA STREET 

SUITE 301 

SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO 00901-1922

US ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 

ATTN: ROSA E. RODRIGUEZ-VELEZ, U.S. ATTORNEY 

TORRE CHARDÓN, SUITE 1201 

350 CARLOS CHARDÓN STREET 

SAN JUAN PR 00918 

SHINDLER ANDERSON & GOPLERUD, P.C. 

ATTN: J. BARTON GOPLERUD & ANDREW HOWIE 

5015 GRAND RIDGE DRIVE, SUITE 100 

WEST DES MOINES IA 50265-5749 

PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY 

ATTENTION: OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL 

P.O. BOX 364267 

SAN JUAN PR 00936-4267 

APRUM 

APARTADO POSTAL 2227 

MAYAGUEZ PR 00681 

 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:4175-2 Filed:11/05/18 Entered:11/05/18 17:55:05 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Jitu Banker, Chief Financial Officer of Gateway International Holdings, Inc.,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2005,  fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)) and that  information  contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
for the fiscal  quarter ended June 30, 2005,  fairly  presents,  in all material
respects,   the  financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of  Gateway
International Holdings, Inc.

By: /s/ Jitu Banker
    -----------------------------
Name:   Jitu Banker
Title:  Chief Financial Officer
Date:   August 15, 2005
null

304.14526
§ 25.1711 Component identification: EWIS. ( a ) EWIS components must be labeled or otherwise identified using a consistent method that facilitates identification of the EWIS component, its function, and its design limitations, if any.
( b ) For systems for which redundancy is required, by certification rules, by operating rules, or as a result of the assessment required by § 25.1709, EWIS components associated with those systems must be specifically identified with component part number, function, and separation requirement for bundles. ( 1 ) The identification must be placed along the wire, cable, or wire bundle at appropriate intervals and in areas of the airplane where it is readily visible to maintenance, repair, or alteration personnel.
( 2 ) If an EWIS component cannot be marked physically, then other means of identification must be provided.
( c ) The identifying markings required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section must remain legible throughout the expected service life of the EWIS component.
( d ) The means used for identifying each EWIS component as required by this section must not have an adverse effect on the performance of that component throughout its expected service life.
( e ) Identification for EWIS modifications to the type design must be consistent with the identification scheme of the original type design.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Final environmental impactstatement for the revised land management plan: Idaho Panhandle NationalForests.**
 
Main Report | Appendices
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.92:ID 1/5
Item Number:0080-F (online)
CGP systemNumber:000930346
 
January 16, 2018
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 28.2

                          ANNUAL SERVICER'S CERTIFICATE

                          CHASE MANHATTAN BANK USA, N.A.


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

                       Chase Manhattan Owner Trust 1998-C

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


      The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of Chase Manhattan Bank
USA, N.A. ("Chase USA"), as Servicer pursuant to the Sale and Servicing
Agreement dated as of December 1, 1996 (the "Sale and Servicing Agreement") by
and between Chase USA and Norwest Bank Minnesota, National Association, as
trustee (the "Trustee"), does hereby certify that:

1.    A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from January
      1, 1999 until December 31, 1999 was conducted under my supervision.

2.    Based on such review, the Servicer has, to the best of my knowledge, fully
      performed in all material respects all its obligations, under the Sale and
      Servicing Agreement throughout such period and no material default in the
      performance of such obligations has occurred or is continuing except as
      set forth in paragraph 3 below.

3.    None.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this certificate
this 15th day of March 2000.

                                          /s/Keith Schuck
                                          ------------------------
                                          Keith Schuck
                                          Vice President
#### Marion W. McCarter et al., Respondents, *v.*Charles D. Beckwith et al., Appellants.

(Submitted June 5, 1936;

decided July 8, 1936.)

*489
      *Albert Ritchie*and *Frederick H.*Seacord, *Jr.,*for appellants.

*John J. Dillon*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Lotjghran and Finch, JJ.
§ 1253.425 Counseling and use of appraisal and counseling materials. ( a ) *Counseling.* A recipient shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of sex in the counseling or guidance of students or applicants for admission.
( b ) *Use of appraisal and counseling materials.* A recipient that uses testing or other materials for appraising or counseling students shall not use different materials for students on the basis of their sex or use materials that permit or require different treatment of students on such basis unless such different materials cover the same occupations and interest areas and the use of such different materials is shown to be essential to eliminate sex bias. Recipients shall develop and use internal procedures for ensuring that such materials do not discriminate on the basis of sex. Where the use of a counseling test or other instrument results in a substantially disproportionate number of members of one sex in any particular course of study or classification, the recipient shall take such action as is necessary to assure itself that such disproportion is not the result of discrimination in the instrument or its application.
( c ) *Disproportion in classes.* Where a recipient finds that a particular class contains a substantially disproportionate number of individuals of one sex, the recipient shall take such action as is necessary to assure itself that such disproportion is not the result of discrimination on the basis of sex in counseling or appraisal materials or by counselors.
§ 33.84 Engine overtorque test. ( a ) If approval of a maximum engine overtorque is sought for an engine incorporating a free power turbine, compliance with this section must be demonstrated by testing. ( 1 ) The test may be run as part of the endurance test requirement of § 33.87. Alternatively, tests may be performed on a complete engine or equivalent testing on individual groups of components.
( 2 ) Upon conclusion of tests conducted to show compliance with this section, each engine part or individual groups of components must meet the requirements of § 33.93(a)(1) and (a)(2).
( b ) The test conditions must be as follows: ( 1 ) A total of 15 minutes run at the maximum engine overtorque to be approved. This may be done in separate runs, each being of at least 21 ⁄ 2 minutes duration.
( 2 ) A power turbine rotational speed equal to the highest speed at which the maximum overtorque can occur in service. The test speed may not be more than the limit speed of take-off or OEI ratings longer than 2 minutes.
( 3 ) For engines incorporating a reduction gearbox, a gearbox oil temperature equal to the maximum temperature when the maximum engine overtorque could occur in service; and for all other engines, an oil temperature within the normal operating range.
( 4 ) A turbine entry gas temperature equal to the maximum steady state temperature approved for use during periods longer than 20 seconds when operating at conditions not associated with 30-second or 2 minutes OEI ratings. The requirement to run the test at the maximum approved steady state temperature may be waived by the FAA if the applicant can demonstrate that other testing provides substantiation of the temperature effects when considered in combination with the other parameters identified in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section.
[Doc. No. 2007-28502, 74 FR 45310, Sept. 2, 2009]
[No. 20865-6-III.

Division Three.

November 7, 2002.]

#### *In the Matter of the Estate of*Lela Austin. Melinda B. Wilde, *as Personal Representative, Appellant,*v. Edmond G. Alexander, *as Personal Representative, Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Yakima County, No. 82-4-00400-2, Lani-Kai Swanhart, J. Pro Tern., entered January 10, 2002. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Kato, A.C.J., concurred in by Sweeney and Schultheis, JJ.
demonstrate that his counsel's performance was deficient in that it fell

below an objective standard of reasonableness, and resulting prejudice such that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, petitioner would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-59 (1985); Kirksey v. State, 112 Nev. 980, 988, 923 P.2d 1102, 1107 (1996). Both components of the inquiry must be shown. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 697 (1984). We give deference to the court's factual findings if supported by substantial evidence and not clearly erroneous but review the court's application of the law to those facts de novo. Lader u. Warden, 121 Nev. 682, 686, 120 P.3d 1164, 1166 (2005).

Appellant claims that his plea was not knowing and voluntary and that trial counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to inform him that he would be deported when he was convicted of forgery. He claims that trial counsel only informed him that he might be deported rather than that he would be deported. Appellant fails to demonstrate that his plea was not knowing and voluntary or that trial counsel was deficient or that he was prejudiced.

In Padilla v. Kentucky, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that [w]hen the law is not succinct and straight

forward . . . , a criminal defense attorney need do no more than advise a noncitizen client that pending criminal charges may carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences. But when the deportation consequence is truly clear . . . , the duty to give correct advice is equally clear. 559 U.S. 356, 369 (2010). Trial counsel testified at the evidentiary hearing that it was her practice to tell every noncitizen she represents that they will be deported if they plead guilty. This advice satisfied the

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2

(0) 1947Arequirements of 

### Padilla. Further, appellant's plea agreement informed

him that he will likely be deported if he was a noncitizen and appellant informed the court at his change of plea hearing that he read and understood the plea agreement. At the evidentiary hearing, appellant stated that trial counsel had discussed the immigration consequences paragraph of the plea agreement with him. Therefore, he fails to demonstrate that his plea was not knowing and voluntary because the immigration consequences were explained to him

Further, appellant fails to demonstrate prejudice because he fails to demonstrate a reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Appellant received a large benefit from pleading guilty because he was originally charged with three felonies but was able to plead guilty to one and was given probation. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying the motion, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Pickering

Saitta

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3
(0) 1940A ea,

### cc: Hon. Valorie J. Vega, District Judge Christopher R. Oram Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 

### 4

(0) 1947A
# C_2016407EN.01000101.xml

| 4.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 407/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 407/1

---

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

2015-2016 SESSION

Sittings of 8 to 11 June 2015

The Minutes of this session have been published in OJ C 247, 7.7.2016.

The Minutes of this session have been published in OJ C 247, 7.7.2016.

TEXTS ADOPTED

Sitting of 24 June 2015

The Minutes of this session have been published in OJ C 256, 14.7.2016.

The Minutes of this session have been published in OJ C 256, 14.7.2016.

TEXTS ADOPTED

---