alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Annual Report of Main Street Trust, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
B. White, Chief Financial 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) 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 result of operations of
          the Company.



/s/  David B. White
-------------------------
David B. White
Chief Financial Officer
March 16, 2007
Exhibit 32.01

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 on Form 10-K of MercadoLibre, Inc. (the Company)
for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Marcos Galperín, 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:



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



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



/s/ Marcos GalperínMarcos GalperínChief Executive OfficerMarch 31, 2008


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany this report pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company whether made before or after the date hereof,
regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other 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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

THOMAS JOHN CARLSON,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

BRIAN DUFFY; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 15

- 15899

D.C. No. 2:13

- cv

- 00766

- TLN

- AC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 14, 2016 **

Before: WALLACE , LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Thomas John Carlson appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary jud gment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that

priso n officials illegally withdrew from his prison trust account V eteran ’ s

D isability B enefits under 38 U.S.C. § 5301(a). We h ave jurisdiction under 28

* 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

DEC 23 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 15899

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Furnace v. Sullivan , 705 F.3d 1021, 1026

(9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Carlson

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants

personally participated in the alleged rights deprivation. See Jones v. Williams

,

297 F.3d 930, 934

- 35 (9th Cir. 2002) (“In order for a person acting under color of

state law to be liable under section 1983 there must be a showing of personal

participatio n in the alleged rights deprivation

. . . . ”) ; cf. Nelson v. Heiss , 271 F.3d

891, 894

- 9 7 (9th Cir. 2001) ( explaining that 38 U.S.C. § 5301(a) precludes prison

officials from placing holds on an inmate’s account, and that an inmate cannot

assign his future V eteran’s D isability B enefits to pay for goods and services that he

has received).

We reject as without merit Carlson’s contention that the district court did not

consider his objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations

and the authority cited therein

.

We do not consider matters not specifically a nd distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).3 15

- 15899

All pending requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.
|   | 1. | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934:and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material;      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      company. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  /s/ James E. Henry              |
|---------------------------------------|
| Name:  James      E. Henry  |
| Chief      Executive Officer          |
|                                  |
|                                  |
|  /s/ Brian Reach                 |
| Name:  Brian      Reach     |
| Chief      Operating Officer          |
|                                  |
|                                  |
| /s/ John P. Hopkins                   |
| Name:  John      P. Hopkins |
| Chief      Financial Officer          |

----
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6524** 

EARL BOYD TRUMP , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY SHERIFF; COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY, Montgomery County , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the Uni ted States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke
. Glen E. Conrad , Chief District Judge. ( 7:10

- cv - 00142

- GEC

- MFU )

Submitted : August 26, 2010 Decided: September 2, 2010

Before KING and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Earl Boyd Trump, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Earl Boyd Trump appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing as friv olous his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (200 6 ). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Trump v. Montgomery Cnty. Sheriff , No. 7:10

- cv - 00142

- GEC

- MFU (W.D. Va. Mar. 31, 2010). 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
#### Henderson and Others v. Anderson’s Executrix and Others.

Monday, October 9th, 1815.

i. Chancery Practice — Dismissal of Bill. — It is error to dismiss a bill in chancery, as to parties who have not answered, and on whom a decree nisi has not been served or published according to law.

This was a suit in the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District against Mary Anderson, widow and executrix^ of Reinard Anderson, deceased, Julius King, and Martha, his wife, late Martha Anderson, John E. Anderson, Mary Anderson, and Elizabeth Anderson, and Hezekiah R. Anderson, infants, by Mary Anderson, their mother and guardian. The object of the bill was to subj ect the estate of Reinard Anderson, deceased, to the payment of a debt contracted by the executrix, for goods purchased for the use of herself and children, upon the credit of the estate.

Julius King and wife, John E. Anderson, and Mary Anderson answered the bill; objecting to the claim of the plaintiffs, on the ground that credit to an unreasonable extent had been given by them to the widow, who, (they alleged,) *extravagant in her dealings, and exceeded in her pur*197chases the profits of the estate, which, with good management, would have been amply sufficient for the decent maintenance of the family. The plaintiffs replied generally, and, after taking depositions, had the cause set for hearing as to those defendants.

The bill was taken pro confesso as to Mary Anderson, the executrix, and Elizabeth and Hezekiah R. Anderson, her infant children ; but it did not appear that any copy of the decree nisi was served upon either of them.

The chancellor dismissed the bill, in general terms ; giving costs to the defendants King and wife, John E. and Mary Anderson, but saying nothing about the other defendants.

The plaintiffs appealed to this court.

George K. Taylor for the appellant.

No counsel for the appellee.

October 13th, 181S. The president pronounced the following opinion of the court.

The court, (not deciding at present, whether the said decree is erroneous or not, in any other particular,) is of opinion, that it is erroneous in dismissing the hill of the appellants, as to the appellees Mary Anderson, widow and executrix of Reinard Anderson, deceased, Elizabeth Anderson, and Hezekiah R. Anderson, who have not answered the same, nor against whom was there a final decree tailing the bill for confessed.

Decree reversed ; and cause remanded to the court of Chancery, to be proceeded in against all the appellees.
Exhibit 3.1


                             ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                           ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                       RECYCLING CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC.

      Pursuant  to  7-110-106 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, the  undersigned
corporation  adopts  the  following Articles of Amendment  to  its  Articles  of
Incorporation:

     FIRST:    The name of the corporation is Recycling Centers of America, Inc.

      SECOND:   The following amendment was adopted by the shareholders  of  the
corporation  on  January  14,  2002, in the manner prescribed  by  the  Colorado
Revised  Statutes and the number of votes cast for the amendment by each  voting
group  entitled to vote separately on the amendment was sufficient for  approval
by that voting group:

     ARTICLE I was deleted and the following ARTICLE I was substituted
therefore:

                                  "ARTICLE I

                              NAME OF CORPORATION

        The  name of the corporation is Reclamation Consulting and Applications,
Inc."


     THIRD: This Amendment is to be effective as of January 16, 2002


                                             RECYCLING CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC.

                                             By /s/
                                               --------------------------------
                                                  Gordon W. Davies
                                                  President

                                             By /s/
                                               --------------------------------
                                                  Michael C. Davies
                                                  Secretary


STATE OF CALIFORNIA           )
                              ) SS
COUNTY OF ORANGE         )
On  January  23, 2002 before me, Charles Wes Howrey a Notary Public in  and  for
said County and State, personally appeared Gordon W. Davies, personally known to
me  (or  proved  to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be  the  person
whose  name  is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged  to  me
that  he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature
on  the  instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of  which  the  person
acted, executed the instrument.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.



Signature    /s/


(Notary's Seal)



STATE OF CALIFORNIA           )
                              ) SS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES         )

On  January  23, 2002 before me, Charles Wes Howrey a Notary Public in  and  for
said  County and State, personally appeared Michael C. Davies, personally  known
to  me  (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person
whose  name  is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged  to  me
that  he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature
on  the  instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of  which  the  person
acted, executed the instrument.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.


Signature      /s/


(Notary's Seal)
Go & Dine Customer Satisfaction 

Survey

Thank you so much for participating in the Go & Dine program. We like to hear from clients about how the program is working for 

them. Please take a few minutes to complete this survey and let us know what we are doing well and where and how we can improve 

the program for the future. All answers are COMPLETELY CONFIDENTIAL and will have no bearing on your services going 

forward. Thank you for your input.

1. How many of your vouchers do you use a month?

$ 1 $ 2 $ 3 $ 4

2. Has the Go & Dine program encouraged you to go out and eat a nutritious meal with family and friends?

$ Yes $ No

3. With whom do you usually participate in the Go & Dine program with? 

$ Alone $ Spouse $ Sibling $ Child $ Grand Child

$ Relative $ Significant Other $ Friend

4. Have there been any barriers that have not allowed you to use all of your vouchers or get to restaurants monthly?

$ Yes $ No

5. If yes, please explain.

6. Do you feel since joining the Go & Dine Program that you have been able to see your family and friends more often?

$ Strongly Disagree $ Disagree $ Neutral $ Agree $ Strongly Agree

7. Do you feel since joining the Go & Dine Program that you have been able to get out of your house more often?

$ Strongly Disagree $ Disagree $ Neutral $ Agree $ Strongly Agree

8. Do you feel since joining the Go & Dine Program that you are eating more nutritious foods?

$ Strongly Disagree $ Disagree $ Neutral $ Agree $ Strongly Agree

9. How do you feel we could improve the Go & Dine Program?

Turn Over

0 6

6 0 1

066 Page 1
Go & Dine Customer Satisfaction 

Survey

10. Have you ever participated in the StayFit Dining program provided by Erie County Senior Services?

$ Yes $ No

11. If not, would you like information about the program sent to you?

$ Yes $ No

12. Have you ever heard of NY Connects Information and Assistance Hotline?

$ Yes $ No

13. If not, would you like information about the program sent to you?

$ Yes $ No

xxxxx

0 6

6 0 2

066 Page 2
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 107 (Friday, June 2, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 35426]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13752]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Thrift Supervision


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

May 26, 2000.
    The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) has submitted the following 
public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and 
clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. 
Interested persons may obtain copies of the submission(s) by calling 
the OTS Clearance Officer listed. Send comments regarding this 
information collection to the OMB reviewer listed and to the OTS 
Clearance Officer, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20552.

DATES: Submit written comments on or before July 3, 2000.
    OMB Number: 1550--0011.
    Form Number: Not applicable.
    Type of Review: Regular.
    Title: General Reporting and Recordkeeping by Savings Associations.
    Description: This collection of information allows management of 
savings associations to exercise prudent controls and to provide OTS 
with a means of determining the integrity of savings association 
records and operations when examining for safety, soundness, and 
regulatory compliance.
    Respondents: Savings and Loan Associations and Savings Banks.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 1,104.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Response: 3,369 hours.
    Frequency of Response: Once per activity.
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 3,718,911 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Mary Rawlings-Milton, (202) 906-6028, Office of 
Thrift Supervision, 1700 Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander Hunt, (202) 395-7860, Office of Management 
and Budget, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 
20503.

John E. Werner,
Director, Information and Management Services.
[FR Doc. 00-13752 Filed 6-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6720-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1802

In re: JOHN DOE,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (7:01-cr-00027-BO-1)

Submitted: November 30, 2020 Decided: December 3, 2020

Before KING and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Doe, Petitioner Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John Doe petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly 

delayed in ruling on his second motion for bond pending appeal. He seeks an order from 

this court directing the district court to act. The present record does not reveal undue delay 

in the district court. Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition. We grant the motion 

to proceed by pseudonym and deny the motion to expedite as moot. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

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

PETITION DENIED
§ 155.5025 One-time port waiver. ( a ) If the vessel owner or operator seeks a one-time port waiver, they must certify in writing or using electronic signatures acceptable to the Coast Guard, prior to the vessel's entry into the Captain of the Port (COTP) zone, that they have met the requirements of— ( 1 ) 33 CFR 155.1025(e)(1) through (3); and
( 2 ) The vessel owner or operator has identified and ensured the availability of, through contract or other approved means, the private response resources necessary to respond, to the maximum extent practicable under the criteria in § 155.5050 to a worst case discharge or substantial threat of discharge from the vessel in the applicable COTP zone.
( b ) Once the vessel owner or operator satisfies the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, the cognizant U.S. Coast Guard COTP may grant written authorization for that nontank vessel to make one voyage in the respective geographic-specific area not covered by the vessel response plan.
( c ) All requirements of this subpart must be met by a nontank vessel that received a one-time port waiver, for any subsequent voyage to the same geographic-specific area.
### Investigations of Sediment Transportation, Middle Loup River at Dunning, Nebraska: With Application of Data from Turbulence Flume

By: David Wellington HubbellDonald Quintin Matejka

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1476

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 6**                            (869 pdf)                        
  - **Plate 7**                            (1038 pdf)                        
  - **Plate 8**                            (2110 pdf)                        
  - **Plate 9**                            (4117 pdf)                        
  - **Plate 10**                            (4227 pdf)                        
  - **Plate 11**                            (3435 pdf)                        
  - **Plate 12**                            (1509 pdf)                        
  - **Plate 13**                            (3463 pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
```

[111th Congress Public Law 7]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ007.111]
Public Law 111-7
111th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
2105 East Cook Street in Springfield, Illinois, as the ``Colonel John H. 
 Wilson, Jr. Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Mar. 9, 2009 -  [S. 234]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. COLONEL JOHN H. WILSON, JR. POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2105 East Cook Street in Springfield, Illinois, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Colonel John H. Wilson, Jr. Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Colonel 
John H. Wilson, Jr. Post Office Building''.

    Approved March 9, 2009.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 234:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009):
            Feb. 12, considered and passed Senate.
            Feb. 24, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```