alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
32.1 – CEO Certification
 
 
 HEARTLAND,
INC.
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUNT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Heartland, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Terry Lee, Chief
Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by 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 results of operations of the Company as of and for
the period covered by the Report.
 
 
 /s/ Terry Lee
 
 Terry
Lee, CEO
 And
Chairman of the Board of Directors
 
 May 19,
2008
§ 1167.4 Testimony and production of official records and information. ( a ) No employee may produce official records and information or provide any testimony in response to a demand or request unless authorized to do so by the General Counsel in accordance with this part.
( b ) The General Counsel, in his or her discretion, may grant an employee permission to testify or produce official records and information in response to a demand or request. In making this decision, the General Counsel shall consider whether: ( 1 ) Allowing such testimony or production of records would be consistent with the purposes of this part;
( 2 ) Allowing such testimony or production of records would be necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice;
( 3 ) Allowing such testimony or production of records would be in the best interest of NEH and the United States; or
( 4 ) NEH has an interest in the outcome of the legal proceeding.
( c ) If authorized to testify pursuant to this part, an employee may testify as to facts within his or her personal knowledge or produce official records and information, but, unless specifically authorized to do so by the General Counsel, shall not: ( 1 ) Disclose confidential or privileged information;
( 2 ) Testify as to matters regarding which the General Counsel determines that testimony would not be in the best interest of NEH or the United States;
( 3 ) Produce official records and information regarding which the General Counsel determines that production would not be in the best interest of NEH or the United States; or
( 4 ) Testify as an expert or opinion witness with regard to any matter arising out of the employee's official duties or the functions of NEH. (*See also* 5 CFR 2635.805.)
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 18-5261 September Term, 2019

 FILED ON: AUGUST 21, 2020

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON AND NICHOLAS MEZLAK,

APPELLEES

v.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,

APPELLEE

CROSSROADS GRASSROOTS POLICY STRATEGIES,

APPELLANT

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 1:16-cv-00259)

Before: SRINIVASAN, Chief Judge, GARLAND, Circuit Judge, and WILLIAMS*, Senior Circuit

Judge

J U D G M E N T

This cause came on to be heard on the record on appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and was argued by counsel. On consideration thereof, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the District Court appealed from in this

cause be affirmed, in accordance with the opinion of the court filed herein this date.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy

Deputy Clerk

Date: August 21, 2020

Opinion for the court filed by Chief Judge Srinivasan.

* The late Senior Circuit Judge Williams was a member of the panel at the time the case was argued

and participated in its consideration before his death on August 7, 2020. Because he died before the

issuance of the opinion, his vote was not counted. See Yovino v. Rizo, 139 S. Ct. 706, 710 (2019). 

Judges Srinivasan and Garland have acted as a quorum with respect to the opinion and this judgment. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). 

USCA Case #18-5261 Document #1857628 Filed: 08/21/2020 Page 1 of 1
# 1993 Executive Calendars

**

----

   The Executive Calendar is published by the Executive Clerk’s office in the Office of the Secretary of the Senate. The calendar is published each day the Senate is in session. These calendars list executive business items such as unanimous consent agreements, resolutions, treaties, and nominations. The calendar is identified by the date published and a volume number, which both appear on the cover of the calendar. A final calendar is published at the end of each session of Congress. For a detailed summary of the sections of the Executive Calendar, see, About the Executive Calendar.
Order entered August 7, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01223-CV

MICHAEL MORFORD D/B/A NEMAHA WATER SERVICES, GEFFREY ARNOLD 

MCFALLS, INDIVIDUALLY D/B/A NEMAHA WATER SERVICES, NEMAHA 

WATER SERVICES, LP, NEMAHA WATER SERVICES GP, LLC, NEMAHA WATER 

SERVICES OK-1702, LLC, AND NEMAHA SERVICES HOLDING COMPANY, LLC,

Appellants

V.

ESPOSITO SECURITIES, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-05795

ORDER

Appellants request that we also treat this appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus. We 

ABATE the mandamus proceeding pursuant to rule 7.2(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. This case is removed from the Court’s active docket until further order of this Court 

to allow the successor judge to reconsider the ruling of the trial court. The parties shall timely 

notify this Court of all events affecting the status of this case, including when the successor 

judge has ruled in accordance with rule 7.2(b). The parties shall file a status report by August 28, 

2015.

/s/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE

PRESIDING JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 695 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 695

To repeal the provisions of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 
  that impose new information reporting requirements with respect to 
                        digital asset transfers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 8, 2023

   Mr. Cruz introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal the provisions of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 
  that impose new information reporting requirements with respect to 
                        digital asset transfers.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF NEW INFORMATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS WITH 
              RESPECT TO DIGITAL ASSET TRANSFERS.

    (a) In General.--The amendments made by section 80603 of the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act are repealed and the provisions 
of law amended by such section are restored as if such section had 
never been enacted.
    (b) Effective Date.--The repeal made by subsection (a) shall take 
effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
INVESTIGATIVE SUMMARY I19INV00007 DATE: OCTOBER 19, 2021 

Allegations of Nepotism Against Senior FEC Employee

The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) completed an investigation based on a referral from the 

Federal Election Commission (FEC) Office of Inspector General (OIG). On January 31, 

2019, the FEC OIG received an anonymous hotline complaint that alleged prohibited 

personnel practices (i.e., nepotism) on the part of a senior FEC employee. Specifically, the 

complaint alleged that the employee improperly influenced a hiring process to the advantage 

of a family member, which is prohibited by 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b). 

The OIG referred the complaint to OSC in May 2020 due to the lack of internal investigative 

personnel resources. OSC completed its investigation and determined that the allegation was 

not substantiated based on the preponderance of the evidence, which included review of 

relevant personnel records and testimony by agency employees. Among other things, OSC 

found essentially no evidence that the employee in question was a relative as provided in 

5 U.S.C. § 2302(b). As such, the OIG has closed the matter.
#### § 1149.56 Are post-hearing briefs required?

Any party may file a post-hearing brief; but, such briefs are not required, unless ordered by the ALJ. The ALJ must fix the time for filing such briefs, not to exceed 60 days from the date the parties receive the transcript of the hearing or, if applicable, the stipulated record. Such briefs may be accompanied by proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The ALJ may permit the parties to file reply briefs.
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATIONS 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





In connection with the Annual Report of GTJ REIT, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Periodic Report”), I, David J. Oplanich, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1. the Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date: March 31, 2011

/s/ David J. OplanichDavid J. OplanichChief Financial Officer
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 Amendment No.1 to the Annual Report of Freedom 5, Inc.
      (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Virginia K. Sourlis, 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 and belief:





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.


Dated:
                July 23, 2008
            By:
            /s/ Virginia
                K. SourlisVirginia
                K. Sourlis
              President(Principal
                Executive Officer)
              (Principal
                Financial Officer)
Exhibit 33.2


          ASSERTION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA



The Bank of New York and The Bank of New York Trust Company, N. A.
(collectively, the "Company") provides this platform-level assessment of
compliance with the servicing criteria specified in Item 1122(d) of Regulation
AB promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Management has determined that the following servicing criteria are applicable
in regards to the following servicing platform for the following period:

Platform: Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially
required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) residential
mortgage-backed securities and other mortgage-related asset-backed securities
issued on or after January 1, 2006 (and like-kind transactions issued prior to
January 1, 2006) for which the Company provides trustee, securities
administration, paying agent or custodial services. The platform includes like
kind transactions for which the Company provided trustee, securities
administrator, paying agent or custodial services as a result of the Company's
acquisition as of October 1, 2006 of portions of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s
corporate trust business, including structured finance agency and trust
transactions.

Applicable Servicing Criteria: All servicing criteria set forth in Item
1122(d), to the extent required by the related transaction agreements as to
any transaction, except for the following criteria: 1122 (d) (1)(ii), (iii),
(iv), (4) (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii) and (xiii).

Period: Twelve months ended December 31, 2006.

With respect to the Platform and the Period, the Company provides the
following assessment of compliance in respect of the Applicable Servicing
Criteria:

o  The Company is responsible for assessing its compliance with the Applicable
Servicing Criteria.

o  The Company has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

o  As of December 31, 2006 and for the Period, the Company was in material
compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.



                                      1
<PAGE>


Ernst & Young LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has
issued an attestation report with respect to the Company's foregoing
assessment of compliance.



      The Bank of New York                    The Bank of New York
      The Bank of New York Trust              The Bank of New York Trust
         Company, N.A.                           Company, N.A.


      /s/ Robert L. Griffin                   /s/ Patrick J. Tadie
      ---------------------------             ---------------------------
      Robert L. Griffin                       Patrick J. Tadie
      Authorized Signer                       Authorized Signer


March 1, 2007



                                      2
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 23, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-10901 Conference Calendar

BRENDA DAVID, ET AL., Plaintiffs, DOUGLAS S. MCGLOHON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, ET AL., Defendants, CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:76-CV-834 USDC No. 3:76-CV-1593

-------------------- Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Douglas S. McGlohon moves this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the denial of his F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b) motion filed approximately eight years after the final judgment in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. McGlohon’sNo. 04-10901 -2- motion is construed as a challenge to the district court’s determination that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). This court’s inquiry into whether the appeal is taken in good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves ‘legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).’” Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted). If the appeal is frivolous, this court may dismiss it sua sponte under 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 n.24. McGlohon has not shown that his appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits. See Howard , 707 F.2d at 220. McGlohon has not shown that extraordinary circumstances warrant relief from the operation of the judgment. See Rule 60(b)(6). McGlohon also failed to provide a valid reason for the lateness of his May 2003 postjudgment challenge to the January 1995 judgment; he has not shown that he could not have learned earlier of the grounds relied upon or that the defendants would not be prejudiced. See Travelers Ins. Co. v. Liljeberg Enters., Inc. , 38 F.3d 1404, 1410 (5th Cir. 1994). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McGlohon’s Rule 60(b) motion filed eight years after the entry of the final judgment. See McCorvey v. Hill , 385 F.3d 846, 848 (5th Cir. 2004), cert. denied , 125 S. Ct. 1387 (2005). McGlohon’s request for IFP status is denied, and his appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. McGlohon is warned that filing future frivolous actions or appeals may result in the imposition of sanctions.No. 04-10901 -3- See Woodson v. Surgitek, Inc. , 57 F.3d 1406, 1417 (5th Cir. 1995). IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
**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**

| Dated:                  March 31, 2008 | /s/                   Wayne D. Cockburn                                                                                                             |   |
|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                   | Wayne                  D. Cockburn                                                                                                                       |   |
|                                   | President,                  Chief Executive Officer,                                                                                                     |   |
|                                   | Secretary,                  Treasurer and Interim Chief                                                                                                  |   |
|                                   | Financial                  Officer and a Member of the Board of Directors (Principal Executive                  Officer and Principal Financial Officer) |   |

----
Hillsborough,

No. 5314.

#### Armand F. Roy *v.*Charles J. Dunn.

Argued February 3, 1965.

Decided February 26, 1965.

*Armand F. Roy*(by brief and orally), pro se.

*Wyman, Bean & Tefft {Mr. Arthur E. Bean, Jr.*orally), for the defendant.

Wheeler, J.

The case before us is described in the reserved case as an “Action purporting to be an action at law brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, Dunn, alleging false testimony in a Court of Law on June 11, 1962, in Civil Case No. 8625.”

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss which was granted after hearing. The plaintiff’s exception to the order of the Court was reserved and transferred by Leahy, C.J.

The defendant Charles J. Dunn, Esq., is an attorney who at one time represented the Manchester Gas Company and the Fidelity and Casualty Company in an action at law which this same plaintiff brought seeking to recover compensation for an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment with the Manchester Gas Company. The facts in that action have been reviewed by this Court *(Roy*v. *Manchester Gas Co.,*104 N. H. 318) and are incorporated herein by reference so far as material.

Mr. Dunn never testified in the action above referred to but made certain statements to the Court to the effect that Roy had sought certain benefits under workmen’s compensation and had received them. This statement was fully supported in *Roy*v. *Manchester Gas Co., supra.*The contention that Dunn testified falsely is without any basis in fact.

The case before us is but another of many attempts by Roy to further litigate his workmen’s compensation claim. This claim *180has been satisfied and his right to further compensation based thereon has been fully litigated. *Roy*v. *Manchester Gas Co., supra.*The action against the defendant Dunn was wholly without foundation.

*Exception overruled.*

Blandin, J., did not sit; the others concurred.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Credit Union Administration

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board, telephone: 703-518-6304.

Mary Rupp,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 06-8739  Filed 10-12-06; 5:02 pm]

BILLING CODE 7535-01-M
Supreme Court of the United States

Office of the Clerk

Washington, DC 20543-0001

June 17, 2022

Clerk 

United States District Court

 for the District of Columbia

333 Constitution Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20001

Re: Federal Election Commission,

v. Ted Cruz for Senate, et al.

No. 21-12

Dear Clerk:

 

Attached please find a certified copy of the judgment of this Court in the above-entitled 

case. 

 Sincerely, 

 SCOTT S. HARRIS, Clerk

 By 

 Michael Altner

 Judgments/Mandates Clerk

Enc.

cc: All counsel of record

 

 

Scott S. Harris

Clerk of the Court

(202) 479-3011

Case 1:19-cv-00908-APM-TJK-NJR Document 77 Filed 06/17/22 Page 1 of 3
Supreme Court of the United States

Office of the Clerk

Washington, DC 20543-0001

June 17, 2022

Mrs. Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Esq.

Solicitor General

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Mr. Charles Justin Cooper, Esq.

Cooper & Kirk, PLLC

1523 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

Re: Federal Election Commission,

v. Ted Cruz for Senate, et al.

No. 21-12

Dear Counsel: 

Attached please find a certified copy of the judgment of this Court in the above-entitled 

case. 

 Sincerely, 

 SCOTT S. HARRIS, Clerk

By 

Michael Altner

Judgments/Mandates Clerk

cc: Clerk, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Scott S. Harris

Clerk of the Court

(202) 479-3011

Case 1:19-cv-00908-APM-TJK-NJR Document 77 Filed 06/17/22 Page 2 of 3
Supreme Court of the United States

No. 21-12

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, 

Appellant 

v.

TED CRUZ FOR SENATE, ET AL.

ON APPEAL from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the

above court and was argued by counsel. 

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is ordered and adjudged by this 

Court that the judgment of the above court is affirmed.

May 16, 2022

Case 1:19-cv-00908-APM-TJK-NJR Document 77 Filed 06/17/22 Page 3 of 3