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 Annual Report of Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard S. Wade, Principal Executive Officer, 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.      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: April 15, 2011
By:
/s/ Richard S. WadeRichard S. WadeChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

#### § 117.202 Cold Spring Brook.

The draw of the footbridge, mile 0.1 at Saybrook, shall open within 15 minutes of a mariner's request by telephone. To enable mariners to request bridge openings, the owner shall maintain and monitor a telephone at the bridge and provide a means for mariners to secure their boats upstream and downstream of the bridge in order to use this telephone.

[CGD3 86-33, 52 FR 5536, Feb. 25, 1987]
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

#### § 117.685 Tchoutacabouffa River.

The draw of the Cedar Lake Road Bridge over the Tchoutacabouffa River, mile 8.0, shall open on signal if at least twenty-four hours notice is given.

[CGD08-98-055, 63 FR 49822, Sept. 18, 1998]
(77 South. 978)

#### GRACE v. STATE.

(6 Div. 420.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Feb. 5, 1918.)

1. Bastaeds <&wkey;90 — Sentence—Haed Labor.

On conviction of bastardy, the court may, under Code 1907, § 6377, fixing sentence at 12 months, impose such sentence at hard labor for the county.

2. Bastards <&wkey;42 — Jurisdiction—Municipal Court.

Under Code 1907, § 6364, providing for the issuance of a warrant in bastardy proceedings by a justice of the peace of the county where the woman is pregnant of a bastard child, and Loc. Acts 1915, p. 231, § 1, conferring on judges of Birmingham municipal court all power of justices of peace, a judge of such municipal court had jurisdiction to issue warrant in bastardy proceedings.

3. Criminal Law <&wkey;1092(13) — Bill of Exceptions — Certificate of Judge.

Bill of exceptions without indorsement by trial judge that it was presented to him, or was correct, is insufficient, in view of Code 1907, § 3019, requiring the judge’s Signature to establish verity of the bill.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Chas. W. Ferguson, Judge.

Charlie Grace was convicted of bastardy, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

M. B. Grace, of Birmingham, for appellant. F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMFORD, J.

[1] The judgment of the court imposing hard labor for the county was in accordance with section. 6377 of the Code, fixing the sentence at 12 months. In this there was no error.

[2] Section 1 of Local Acts 1915, p. 231, confers on the judges of the municipal court of Birmingham “all the power and authority” of justices of the peace. Section 6364 of the Code provides for the issuance of a warrant in bastardy proceedings by a justice of the peace of the county where the woman is pregnant of a bastard child. So that the judge of the municipal court of Birmingham had the. power and jurisdiction to issue the warrant, and the proceedings being regular, the circuit court had the jurisdiction to try and determine the issue and to render judgment in accordance with the statute, which it did.

[3] Its character as a record and its verity as such conies from the fact of its approval by the trial judge, which can be evidenced in no other way than by his signature. Code 1907, § 3019.

In the instant case, there is no indorsement by the trial judge that the purported bill of exceptions has ever been presented to him, nor does it bear any signature of said trial judge coupled with the statement that it is a correct bill of exceptions.

The assignments of error being predicated solely upon what is termed the bill of exceptions leaves nothing before this court for consideration, which necessarily results that the judgment of the lower court must be affirmed.

Affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 51119]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20948]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Application of California-Palomar Airlines, Inc.; D/B/A 
California Pacific Airlines for Certificate Authority

AGENCY: Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2011-8-15); Docket DOT-
OST-2010-0126.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested 
persons to show cause why it should not issue an order finding 
California-Palomar Airlines, Inc. d/b/a California Pacific Airlines 
fit, willing, and able, and awarding to it a certificate of public 
convenience and necessity to engage in interstate scheduled air 
transportation of persons, property, and mail.

DATES: Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than 
August 24, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections should be filed in 
Docket DOT-OST-2010-0126 and addressed to U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Docket Operations, (M-30, Room W12-140), 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590, 
and should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to the 
order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Damon D. Walker, Air Carrier Fitness 
Division (X-56, Room W86-465), U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-7785.

Robert A. Letteney,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2011-20948 Filed 8-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANUP ARYAL,

 Petitioner,

 v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General,

 Respondent.

No. 14-71462

Agency No. A200-998-622

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 10, 2018**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Anup Aryal, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of the Board 

of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s 

decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

SEP 12 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 14-71462 

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual 

findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations 

created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039—40 (9th 

Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination 

based on vagueness and lack of detail regarding an alleged 2003 attack on Aryal

and based on omissions regarding the theft of Aryal’s brother’s store and Aryal’s 

father’s problems with Maoists. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination 

was reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”). In the absence of credible 

testimony relating to key elements of his application, Aryal’s asylum and 

withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 

(9th Cir. 2003). 

Finally, Aryal’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same 

testimony the agency found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel 

the conclusion that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if returned to 

Nepal. See id. at 1156—57. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
----

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

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

|  Dated:  August 4, 2009 | /s/ Amy W. LeongAmy W. LeongControllerTC PipeLines GP, Inc., as general partner ofTC PipeLines, LP (Principal Financial Officer) |
|----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
§ 104.297 Additional requirements—vessels on international voyages. ( a ) An owner or operator of a U.S. flag vessel, which is subject to the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, (SOLAS), must be in compliance with the applicable requirements of SOLAS Chapter XI-1, SOLAS Chapter XI-2 and the ISPS Code, part A (Incorporated by reference, see § 101.115 of this subchapter).
( b ) Owners or operators of U.S. flag vessels that are required to comply with SOLAS, must ensure an International Ship Security Certificate (ISSC) as provided in 46 CFR § 2.01-25 is obtained for the vessel. This certificate must be issued by the Coast Guard.
( c ) Owners or operators of vessels that require an ISSC in paragraph (b) of this section must request an inspection in writing, at least 30 days prior to the desired inspection date to the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection for the Marine Inspection Office or Sector Office of the port where the vessel will be inspected to verify compliance with this part and applicable SOLAS requirements. The inspection must be completed and the initial ISSC must be issued on or before July 1, 2004.
[USCG-2003-14749, 68 FR 39302, July 1, 2003, as amended at 68 FR 60515, Oct. 22, 2003; USCG-2006-25556, 72 FR 36328, July 2, 2007]
Editorial Note on Part 8
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 8 appear at 61 FR 19985, May 3, 1996.

§ 8.10 Filing and service. ( a ) *Filing.* All papers submitted to the Board under this part shall be filed with the Clerk of the Appellate Boards, U.S. Department of Labor.
( b ) *Manner of service.* Service under this part shall be in accordance with 29 CFR part 26. Service by mail is complete on mailing. For purposes of this part, filing is accomplished upon the day of service, by mail or otherwise.
( c ) *Proof of service.* Papers filed with the Board shall contain an acknowledgement of service by the person served or proof of service in the form of a statement of the date and the manner of service and the names of the person or persons served, certified by the person who made service.
( d ) *Service upon the Department of Labor and other interested parties.* A copy of all documents filed with the Board shall be served upon the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210; the Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210; the Federal contracting agency involved; and all other interested parties.
[49 FR 10637, Mar. 21, 1984, as amended at 86 FR 1780, Jan. 11, 2021]
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 49463]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20267]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2106-000]


Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Authorization for 
Continued Project Operation

    On June 16, 2009, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, licensee for 
the McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project, filed an Application for a New 
License pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commission's 
regulations thereunder. The McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project is 
located on the McCloud and Pit Rivers in Shasta County, California.
    The license for Project No. 2106 was issued for a period ending 
July 31, 2011. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 USC 808(a)(1), requires 
the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue from 
year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee under the terms and 
conditions of the prior license until a new license is issued, or the 
project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 15 or any other 
applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior license waived 
the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based on section 9(b) 
of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 USC 558(c), and as set forth at 
18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project has filed an 
application for a subsequent license, the licensee may continue to 
operate the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the 
license after the minor or minor part license expires, until the 
Commission acts on its application. If the licensee of such a project 
has not filed an application for a subsequent license, then it may be 
required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to continue project operations 
until the Commission issues someone else a license for the project or 
otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 2106 is issued to 
the Pacific Gas and Electric Company for a period effective August 1, 
2011 through July 31, 2012, or until the issuance of a new license for 
the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. 
If issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place 
on or before July 31, 2012, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 
CFR 16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is 
renewed automatically without further order or notice by the 
Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
    If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that the Pacific Gas and Electric Company is authorized to 
continue operation of the McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project, until such 
time as the Commission acts on its application for a subsequent 
license.

    Dated: August 4, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-20267 Filed 8-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

#### § 117.803 Niagara River.

The draw of the Canadian National Railway bridge, mile 33.0 at Buffalo, need not be opened for the passage of vessels.
Developmental Disabilities Councils (DDC) Awards for the States/Territories

FY 2016 Estimated Allocation

4/1/2015

Disclaimer: Once Congress enacts an appropriation for FY 2016 and

after ACL has updated the data used in the formula for determining

award amounts, the allotments will be adjusted accordingly.

The final State allotments will be provided to the grantee after a final

appropriations bill is passed by Congress.

State/Territory

Developmental

Disabilities

Councils (DDC)

Alabama $1,268,072

Alaska $472,981

Arizona $1,378,536

Arkansas $753,158

California $6,463,909

Colorado $850,672

Connecticut $674,501

Delaware $472,981

District of Columbia $472,981

Florida $3,463,636

Georgia $2,020,575

Hawaii $472,981

Idaho $472,981

Illinois $2,592,951

Indiana $1,470,467

Iowa $764,774

Kansas $607,124

Kentucky $1,183,513

Louisiana $1,359,014

Maine $472,981

Maryland $995,915

Massachusetts $1,306,966

Michigan $2,439,339

Minnesota $1,012,842

Mississippi $903,134

Missouri $1,337,516

Montana $472,981

Nebraska $472,981

Nevada $472,981

New Hampshire $472,981

New Jersey $1,534,454

New Mexico $484,286

New York $4,065,731

North Carolina $1,977,657

North Dakota $472,981

Ohio $2,812,147

Oklahoma $886,352

Oregon $773,751

Pennsylvania $2,989,763

Rhode Island $472,981

South Carolina $1,083,677

South Dakota $472,981

Tennessee $1,443,646

Texas $4,745,717

Utah $631,102

Vermont $472,981

Virginia $1,483,687

Washington $1,170,954

West Virginia $732,802

Wisconsin $1,277,458

Wyoming $472,981

AmericanSamoa $232,751

Guam $232,751

Northern Mariana Islands $232,751

Puerto Rico $2,476,483

Virgin Islands $232,751

TOTAL $71,442,000
**Exhibit
      32.2**




Section
      906 Certification







The
      following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany the Form 10-Q
      of
      the MLM Index Fund pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
      (18
      U.S.C. 1350).





The
      undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on Form 10-Q fully complies
      with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
      U.S.C. 78m) and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
      of
      the MLM Index Fund.








November
      1, 2006





/s/
      James A. Mehling


Vice
      President and Chief Operating Officer


Mount
      Lucas Management Corporation,


Manager
      of the MLM Index Fund
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

#### § 117.1001 Cat Point Creek.

The draw of the S634 bridge, mile 0.3 at Naylors, need not be opened for the passage of vessels.
#### UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Richard W. MONK, Jr., Appellant, v. James F. MARONEY, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

No. 16117.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 9, 1966.

Decided April 19, 1967.

Richard W. Monk, Jr., pro se.

Edwin J. Martin, Robert W. Duggan, Dist. Atty., Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.

Before STALEY, Chief Judge, and MCLAUGHLIN and FORMAN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant contends that his confinement is unconstitutional by reason of the aggregation of the minimum and maximum sentences as required by § 897 of 19 Purdon’s Pa.Stat.Ann.1 The purpose of that section was to eliminate the requirement that a prisoner serving consecutive sentences apply for a “constructive parole” before beginning to serve his next consecutive sentence. See Commonwealth ex rel. Lycett v. Ashe, 145 Pa. Super. 26, 20 A.2d 881 (1941).

Construing the Act with that legislative purpose in mind, we can discern no issue of constitutional dimension which is essential to Federal habeas corpus relief. •

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

1

. “§ 897. Consecutive sentences, computation of

> “Whenever, after the effective date of this act, two or moTe sentences to run consecutively are imposed by any court of this Commonwealth upon any person convicted of a crime therein, there shall 'be deemed to be imposed upon such person a sentence the minimum of which shall be the total of the minimum limits of the several sentences so imposed, and the maximum of which shall be the total of the' maximum limits of such sentences.”
Argued and submitted June 5,

affirmed September 30, 1992

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*ERVIN L. BROWN, *Appellant.*

(DA 438569; CA A71255)

838 P2d 624

Brian D. Aaron, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Michael C. Livingston, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Rossman, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and De Muniz, Judges.

ROSSMAN, P. J.

*329ROSSMAN, P. J.

Defendant was convicted in a jury trial of menacing, ORS 163.190, a misdemeanor. He was charged by complaint with having committed the crime on February 5, 1991. He seeks vacation of the 30-day jail sentence that he received as a condition of probation. We affirm.

Defendant argues that the trial court erred in applying ORS 137.540(2)(a), *as amended by*Or Laws 1991, ch 196, § 1, which became effective on June 10, 1991.1 He contends that the statute does not contain a provision making the amendment applicable to crimes committed before the effective date of the amendment.

After the 1991 amendment, ORS 137.540 provides, in part:

> “(2) In addition to the general conditions, the court may impose special conditions of probation for the protection of the public or reformation of the offender, or both, including, but not limited to, that the probationer shall:

> “(a) For crimes committed prior to November 1, 1989, *and misdemeanors committed on or after November 1,1989,*he confined to the county jail * * (Emphasis supplied.)

Under the plain language of the statute, a trial court is authorized to impose jail time as a condition of probation in misdemeanor cases committed on or after November 1, *1989*— before the effective date of the 1991 amendments. The statute clearly provides for retroactive application of its provisions.

Defendant also argues that any retroactive application of the amendment to ORS 137.540(2)(a) would violate the *Ex Post Facto*Clauses of the Oregon2 and federal3 constitutions. Defendant did not timely raise any constitutional issue. We decline to consider his *ex post facto*argument. *See State v. Walton,*311 Or 223, 240-41, 809 P2d 81 (1991).

Affirmed.

1

 ORS 137.40 was also amended by Or Laws 1991, ch 630 and Or Laws 1991, ch 731. None of the changes affects this case.

2

 Oregon Constitution, Article I, section 21, provides, in part:

> “No *ex-post facto*law * * * shall ever be passed * *

3

 United States Constitution, Article I, section 10, provides, in part:

> “No state shall * * * pass any * * * ex post facto Law * *
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 14, 2018.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, August 14, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19I0007. EAGLES LANDING PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC. et al. v. GOPALA K. 

DEREBAIL.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

17SV158