alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of American Express Credit Corporation (the Company) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), Christopher S. Forno, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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/ Christopher S. Forno
|------------------------
|Name:                   
|Title:                  
|Date:                   

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or
as a separate disclosure document for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), or otherwise subject to liability under that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be
incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act except to the extent that this Exhibit 32.1 is expressly and specifically incorporated by reference in any such filing.

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.

---
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 112 (Friday, June 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 36675]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14640]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Availability of Inventions for Licensing; Government-
Owned Inventions

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The invention listed below is assigned to the United States 
Government as represented by the Secretary of the Navy and are 
available for licensing by the Department of Navy.
    U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 09/551,364 entitled, 
``Collaborative Development Network for Widely Dispersed Users and 
Methods Therefor,'' filing date: April 17, 2000, Navy Case No. 79260.

ADDRESS: Requests for copies of the patent application cited should be 
directed to the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Laboratory, Code 
CD222, 17320 Dahlgren Road, Building 183, Room 015, Dahlgren, VA 22448-
5100, and must include the Navy Case number. Interested parties will be 
required to sign a Confidentiality, Non-Disclosure and Non-Use 
Agreement before receiving copies of requested patent applications.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James B. Bechtel, Patent Counsel, 
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Laboratory, Code CD222, 17320 
Dahlgren Road, Building 183, Room 015, Dahlgre, VA 22448-5100, 
telephone (540) 653-8016.

(Authority: 35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR Part 404)

    Dated: May 31, 2000.
J.L. Roth,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, 
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-14640 Filed 6-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-U
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 10-3200

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Brian Moore

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of South Dakota - Sioux Falls

____________

 Submitted: August 1, 2012

 Filed: August 10, 2012

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON and BENTON, Circuit Judges, and KOPF, District Judge. 1

____________

PER CURIAM.

This case is on remand from the Supreme Court. In our opinion filed July 14,

2011, United States v. Moore, 461 F. App’x 517 (8th Cir. 2011), we affirmed Brian

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Nebraska, sitting by designation. 
Moore’s conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), and we affirmed his sentence. 

Moore then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court

granted the petition, vacated our judgment, and remanded the case for further

consideration in light of Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012).

We affirm Moore’s conviction for the reasons stated in our prior opinion. 461

F. App’x at 517-18. As for Moore’s sentence, Dorsey held that “the new, more

lenient mandatory minimum provisions” of the Fair Sentencing Act (“FSA”) “apply

to offenders who committed a crack cocaine crime before August 3, 2010, but were

not sentenced until after August 3.” 132 S. Ct. at 2326. Moore fits the profile

described in Dorsey. A jury found Moore guilty of conspiracy to distribute with

intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing cocaine

base on December 10, 2009. Because Moore had a qualifying felony drug conviction,

the district court sentenced him on September 23, 2010, to a mandatory minimum

sentence of 20 years of imprisonment under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). Pursuant to

Dorsey and the FSA, the drug quantity range found by the jury no longer requires

imposition of the same statutory mandatory sentence. We therefore vacate Moore’s

sentence and remand the case to the district court for resentencing consistent with the

Supreme Court’s ruling in Dorsey and the FSA.

______________________________

-2-
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6195

ABDU-SALIM GOULD, a/k/a Salimabdu Gould,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

TODD E. ISHEE, Commissioner, Director of Department of Public Safety,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 22-6255

ABDU-SALIM GOULD, a/k/a Salimabdu Gould,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

TODD E. ISHEE, Commissioner, Director of Department of Public Safety,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:20-hc-02176-FL)

Submitted: July 21, 2022 Decided: July 26, 2022

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6255 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/26/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Abdu-Salim Gould, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6255 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/26/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Abdu-Salim Gould seeks to appeal the district court’s orders: (1) denying his 

motion for entry of default, for default judgment, for summary judgment, and for a stay or 

injunction pending discovery (No. 22-6195); and (2) dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

petition as a duplicative petition (No. 22-6255). The orders are not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When, as here, the district court denies relief 

on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gould has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Gould’s motion for a default judgment, deny 

a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeals. 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. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6255 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/26/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
#### HENRY M. HELLER and ANDREW B. JONES, Respondents, *v.*AMY E. ROSSELLE, Appellant.

*Feme sole*— debt *contracted before marriage*— husband *not necessary party to suit to enforce its payment.*

Tlie defendant, while a *feme*sole, contracted a debt in a business she was then carrying on. Afterward, and before this action, she married. *Held,*that her husband was not a necessary party defendant in this action.

Appeal from a judgment entered on the report of a referee. The action was for goods sold to the defendant, who was, at the time, a *feme sole,*carrying on a separate business in her own name, and for her own account. She afterward married, and is sued by her married name for an account made with the plaintiff before marriage. The referee held her liable to be sued alone, without her husband, and gave judgment for the amount of the account, from which defendant appealed to this court.

*Ralph Glasgow,*for the appellant.

*W. Worth Dewey,*for the respondents.

*Per Ov/riam:*

This judgment is cleaidy right. The defendant was a *feme sole*when the debt was contracted, and liable to be sued as such upon the demand. Her subsequent marriage did not change her rights or liabilities in respect to said debt. At common law, after the marriage, it would have been necessary to join her husband with her in the action, and he may still be so joined under the act of 1853, chapter 576, as held in *Lennox*v. *Eldred*(1 N. Y. S. C., 142), but such joinder is not necessary or imperative. The execution would not go against the husband’s property if he were joined as defendant, as at common law, but would only bind the separate property of the wife.

The husband, in such case, is in no sense responsible for the debt, except in respect to the property of the wife which may come to his possession by the marriage. For this he would be liable to *632account in a proper proceeding against him, if the separate estate remaining in the hands of the wife should prove insufficient to discharge the judgment.

The judgment should be affirmed.

Present — Mullin, P. J., Smith and Gilbert, JJ.

Judgment affirmed.
#### § 102-118.330 Does a transportation prepayment audit waiver change any liabilities of the certifying officer?

Yes, a certifying official is not personally liable for verifying transportation rates, freight classifications, or other information provided on a bill of lading or passenger transportation request when the Administrator of General Services or designee waives the prepayment audit requirement and your agency uses postpayment audits.
#### § 102-117.205 What are the restrictions for transporting HAZMAT?

Agencies that ship HAZMAT are subject to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation regulations, as well as applicable State and local government rules and regulations.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 22-cv-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES

OCTAVIO COLLADO,

Plaintiff,

COLLECTIVE ACTION

v.

450 NORTH RIVER DRIVE, LLC,

D/B/A KIKI ON THE RIVER,

RJ RIVER, LLC AND ROMAN JONES,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

CONSENT TO JOIN PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C. §216(b)

1. My name is _____________________________________.

2. I consent, agree, and opt to become a Plaintiff in this lawsuit brought under the 

FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §201, et seq., against my current/former employer, 450 North River Drive, LLC,

d/b/a Kiki on the River, and alleged employers RJ River, LLC, and Roman Jones (collectively 

“Defendants”).

3. I wish to assert a claim for alleged unpaid/underpaid tips against Kiki on the River 

and the other Defendants for the tips I allege I’m owed.

4. I agree to be bound by any adjudication of this action by the Court, whether it is 

favorable or unfavorable. I further agree to be bound by any collective action settlement herein 

that is recommended by FairLaw Firm, approved by the Class Representative, and approved by 

the Court as fair and reasonable.

5. I designate the FairLaw Firm to represent me in this case.

Dated ______________, 2023. Signed:_________________________

Printed Name:____________________

Your Address, Email, and Telephone Are Needed, But Will Not Filed With The Court

Address: _________________________________ Tel No.:___________________________

_________________________________ Email: ____________________________

MAIL, EMAIL, OR FAX YOUR COMPLETED FORM TO:

FairLaw Firm

135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, FL 33156 / brian@fairlawattorney.com

TEL 305.230.4884 TEXT 786.386.0885 FAX 305.230.4844

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 168-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2023 Page 1 of 1 Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 195-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2023 Page 1 of 1
§ 3040.182 Docket and notice of material changes to product descriptions. ( a ) The Commission shall take the actions identified in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section.
( b ) Establish a docket for each request to change a product description in the Mail Classification Schedule;
( c ) Publish notice of the request on its website;
( d ) Designate an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the docket; and
( e ) Provide interested persons with an opportunity to comment on whether the proposed changes are consistent with the policies and the applicable criteria of chapter 36 of title 39 of the United States Code, the applicable requirements of this part, and any applicable Commission directives and orders.
[80 FR 35575, June 22, 2015. Redesignated and amended at 85 FR 9615, 9660, Feb. 19, 2020; 85 FR 81138, Dec. 15, 2020]
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO  SECTION 302 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 I, John J. Marcello, certify that:1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of The Allied Defense Group, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) 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 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 report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date: October 26, 2006
    
    /s/ John J. MarcelloJohn J. MarcelloChief Executive Officer and
President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5

<MULTIPLIER>                                                              1

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                                   DEC-14-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                     MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                                    54
<SECURITIES>                                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                          54
<PP&E>                                                                     0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                            54
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                    100
<BONDS>                                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                                0
<COMMON>                                                                   1
<OTHER-SE>                                                               (47)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                              54
<SALES>                                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                           0
<CGS>                                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                          (46)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                             100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                     (146)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                                            (146)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                           (1.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                           (1.46)



</TABLE>
#### § 102-34.5 What does this part cover?

This part governs the economical and efficient management and control of motor vehicles that the Government owns, leases commercially or leases through GSA Fleet. Agencies will incorporate appropriate provisions of this part into contracts offering Government-furnished equipment in order to ensure adequate control over the use of motor vehicles.
#### § 102-34.225 How are Federal employees disciplined for misuse of Government motor vehicles?

If an employee willfully uses, or authorizes the use of, a Government motor vehicle for other than official purposes, the employee is subject to suspension of at least one month or, up to and including, removal by the head of the agency (31 U.S.C. 1349).
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 Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of American
Express Credit Corporation (the Company) for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), Anderson Y. Lee, as Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, 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/ Anderson
 Y. Lee
|                    
|Name:                | Anderson Y.
 Lee        
|Title:               | Chief
 Financial Officer
|Date:                | November 16,
 2009      

The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and is not
being filed as part of the Form 10-Q/A or as a separate disclosure
document for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the Exchange Act), or otherwise subject to liability under
that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange
Act except to the extent that this Exhibit 32.2 is expressly and specifically
incorporated by reference in any such filing.

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.

---