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 this amended Annual Report of Net Savings Link, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended November 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “report”), I, David Saltrelli, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated this 5th day of April, 2012.




DAVID SALTRELLIDavid SaltrelliChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
From: joelangjazz@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:35:48 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

F. Joseph Lang

Chatham, NJ 07928
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A2247. CHARLES SLAUGHTER v. THE STATE.

On March 28, 2018, Charles Slaughter entered a negotiated plea of guilty to

DUI and public drunkenness. Thereafter, on April 30, 2018, Slaughter filed a pro se

notice of appeal. We lack jurisdiction.

“A criminal defendant in Georgia does not have the right to represent himself

and also be represented by an attorney, and pro se filings by represented parties are

therefore unauthorized and without effect.” Tolbert v. Toole, 296 Ga. 357, 363 (3)

(767 SE2d 24) (2014) (punctuation omitted). Here, Slaughter was represented by

counsel at his guilty plea hearing. There is nothing in the record indicating that the

attorney either withdrew or wasrelieved from representation. See White v. State, 302

Ga. 315, 318 (2) (806 SE2d 489) (2017) (“defense counsel’s duties toward their

clients extend for at least the 30 days after the entry of judgment when a notice of

appeal may be filed”). Under these circumstances, Slaughter’s pro se notice of appeal

is a nullity. See Soberanis v. State, 345 Ga. App. 403, 405 (812 SE2d 800) (2018). 

For this reason, the appeal is DISMISSED. See id.

To the extent that Slaughter’s right to appeal was frustrated by his counsel’s

failure to file a timely notice of appeal, he may be entitled to an out-of-time appeal.

See Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872, 875-876 (2) (452 SE2d 756) (1995). He therefore

is informed of the following in accordance with Rowland: 

This appeal has been dismissed because you failed to file a timely notice

of appeal. If you still wish to appeal, you may petition the trial court for

leave to file an out-of- time appeal. If the trial court grants your request,

August 01, 2019
you will have 30 days from the entry of that order to file a notice of

appealreferencing your conviction. If the trial court denies your request,

you will have 30 days from the entry of that order to file a notice of

appeal referencing the denial of your request for an out-of-time appeal. 

The clerk of court is DIRECTED to send a copy of this order to Slaughter as

well as to Slaughter’s attorney, who is also DIRECTED to send a copy to Slaughter.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

08/01/2019
From: dancarla@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:39:42 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Carla Ernest

Newbury Park, CA 91320
From: js-1040@peoplepc.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:03:32 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Jack Stanton

Glen Gardner, NJ 08826
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Smith Barney Westport Futures Fund L.P. (the ‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Jerry Pascucci, President and Director of Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

/s/ Jerry Pascucci

|  |
|--|
|  |  |
|  |

Jerry PascucciCitigroup Managed Futures LLC President and Director     Date: August 14, 2007

----
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 ALCO, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 (the "Report"), I, Andrew Liu, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1) The Report fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the Company's financial position and results of operations.      By: /s/ Andrew Liu, CEO and Chairman  Date:March 30, 2011
No. 60467.

#### Henry Kelly Importing & Distributing Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 266985-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
From: felipe@portilloproperties.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:35:29 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Felipe Portillo

Redondo Beach, CA 90278
In The Matter Of: 

JETTECH, LLC 

Respondent 

SERVED: May 10, 2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-2013-1079 

Case No. 2012NM030058 

' -.. -. ~ 

ORDER SETTING DISCOVERY DEADLINE AND PREHEARING CONFERENCE 

On April 4, 2016, the undersigned judge issued an Order Directing the Parties to Meet and 

Confer Regarding Litigation and Scheduling Issues in the above captioned case. 

On May 4, 2016, the parties submitted a joint report to the undersigned judge reporting on 

the results of their meeting. In the report, the parties proposed discovery be completed by July 5, 

2016, and that a telephonic prehearing conference be held on July 20, 2016. 

Pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§ 13.205(a)(l), (7), and (8), it is hereby ORDERED: 

1. The parties shall conClude all discovery by July 5, 2016. 

2. The parties shall appear by telephone for a prehearing conference with the undersigned 

judge on July 20,2016 at 1pm Eastern time. 

3. The parties shall access the conference by dialing telephone number 888-204-5984 and 

then inputting access code 6392406 when prompted. 

4. During the conference, the parties shall be prepared to discuss the issues in dispute, the 

litigation schedule, the status of any settlement negotiations, and any other related 

matters. 

:;~RAWALD Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment: Service List 
SERVICE LIST 

Docket No. F AA-2013-1079 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

John R. "Rob" Irwin, President 

JETTECH, LLC, Respondent 

11757 W. Ken Caryl Avenue, F-503 

Littleton, CO 80127 

TEL: 303-697-4262 

FAX: 303-697-8080 

ONE COPY 

Michael L. Poindexter, Respondent's Counsel 

Law Offices of Michael L. Poindexter 

2132 Montane Drive E. 

Golden, CO 80401 

TEL: 303-526-1980 

FAX: 303-526-1981 

Kyle E. Lomazow, Complainant's Counsel 

Office ofRegional Counsel, Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-1847 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
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  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax
Credit  Fund  VI,  L.P.,  Series 6 (the  "Partnership")  for the  quarter  ended
December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"),  and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  I, Thomas J. Riha,
Chief  Financial  Officer  of WNC &  Associates,  Inc.,  general  partner of the
Partnership, hereby certify 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 Partnership.




/s/THOMAS J. RIHA
-----------------
Thomas J. Riha
Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
December 5, 2005
From: HLJohns@keinet.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:34:19 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Linda Johnson

Greenfield, MO 65661
No. 65994.

#### Brock Candy Company *v.*United States,

protest 257440-K (Memphis).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *The Best Foods, Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 163, C.A.D. 751), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
January 15, 1957

No. 60455.

Suit 4861.

#### United States *v.*Page N. Goffigon.

C. D. 1722 reversed June 20, 1956. C. A. D. 625.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,284,635
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         478,676
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             5,001,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 14,308,339
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     58,281,935
<ALLOWANCE>                                    720,080
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              83,781,462
<DEPOSITS>                                  72,572,854
<SHORT-TERM>                                   371,407
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,273,065
<LONG-TERM>                                    605,919
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       270,500
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,687,717
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              83,781,462
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              2,677,644
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              434,062
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               102,758
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             3,214,464
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,538,739
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,566,810
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,647,654
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   75,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,395,255
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                780,989
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     780,989
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   544,509
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.24
<LOANS-NON>                                    217,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                    44,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               677,101
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   44,000
<RECOVERIES>                                    12,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              720,080
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            37,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        683,080
        

</TABLE>