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

 

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 ***

 

In connectionwith the Annual Report of One XL Corp., (the “Company”), on Form 10-K/A for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) pursuant to the requirement set forthin Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C.§ 1350), C. Lynn White, the President, principal executive officer and principalfinancial officer of the Company, hereby certifies that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

1. The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and

 

2. The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Companyfor the period covered by the Periodic Report.

 

 

Date: October    4, 2011	

 

By:*/s/ C. Lynn White	*

C. Lynn White

 

President (Principal Executive Officerand Principal Financial Officer)

 

*	This certificationaccompanies the Report to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporatedby reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language containedin such filing.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-4251

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KEVIN ALGERIO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District

Judge. (CR-95-103)

Submitted: December 12, 1996 Decided: December 19, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Judson W. Collier, Jr., HOOKER, BODE, COLLIER & DICKINSON, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States

Attorney, M. Hannah Lauck, Assistant United States Attorney,

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Kevin Algerio appeals from a sentence imposed as a

result of his pleading guilty to violating the terms of his supervised release. Algerio contends that the district court abused its

discretion by sentencing him to the high end of the guideline

range. However, a claim that a court erred by imposing a sentence

at the high or low end of a correctly calculated guideline range is

generally not reviewable. United States v. Jones, 18 F.3d 1145,

1151 (4th Cir. 1994). Because Algerio has not alleged that his

sentence was based on an unconstitutional classification, see

United States v. Holmes, 60 F.3d 1134, 1137 (4th Cir. 1995), the

sentence of the district court is unreviewable. Accordingly, we

dismiss Algerio's challenge to his sentence. 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.

DISMISSED
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 Bonanza Goldfields Corporation, (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael Stojsavljevich, 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 to the best of my knowledge:





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





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






BONANZA GOLDFIELDS CORPORATIONBy:
/s/ Michael StojsavljevichMichael StojsavljevichChief Executive OfficerSeptember 28, 2012
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

JARDONALD DANTE MOSELY,

 Defendant.

Case No. 05-5198M

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 ( X ) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Safety Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant is currently on probation/supervision resulting from a prior offense.

 ( ) Defendant was on bond on other charges at time of alleged occurrences herein.

 ( X ) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

 ( ) 

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant’s lack of community ties and resources..

 ( ) Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

 ( ) Detainer(s)/Warrant(s) from other jurisdictions.

 ( ) Failures to appear for past court proceedings.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal,

without prejudice to review..

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 November 4, 2005.

s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cr-05822-RBL Document 7 Filed 11/04/05 Page 1 of 1
ORDER AUTHORIZING DISTRIBUTION 

OF THE SETTLEMENT FUND 

Case No. 2:06-cv-00089-RSM 

001901-11 1057721 V1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

{00187993 }

1301 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 2900 • SEATTLE, WA 98101 

TELEPHONE (206) 623-7292 • FACSIMILE (206) 623-0594

THE HONORABLE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE 

WANECHEK MINK RANCH, and SMITH 

MINK RANCH CORPORATION, on behalf 

of themselves and all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs,

vs. 

ALASKA BROKERAGE 

INTERNATIONAL, et al, 

Defendants

.

No. 2:06-cv-00089-RSM 

ORDER APPROVING DISTRIBUTION 

OF RESIDUAL SETTLEMENT FUNDS 

TO CHARITY 

O R D E R 

Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Order 

Approving Distribution of Residual Settlement Funds to Charity (Dkt. # 226), it is hereby 

ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Class Counsel is authorized to distribute the residue of 

the Settlement Fund totaling $5,407.35 to the American Antitrust Institute. 

SO ORDERED this 25 day of September 2018. 

A 

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

{00187993 }

1301 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 2900 • SEATTLE, WA 98101 

TELEPHONE (206) 623-7292 • FACSIMILE (206) 623-0594

Presented by: 

Steve W. Berman, WSBA #12536 

Anthony D. Shapiro, WSBA #12824 

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 

1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 

Seattle, WA 98101 

Telephone: (206) 623-7292 

Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 

Gregory P. Hansel 

Randall B. Weill 

PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU 

 & PACHIOS, LLC 

One City Center 

P. O. Box 9546 

Portland, ME 04112-9546 

Telephone: (207)791-3000 

Joseph C. Kohn 

KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. 

One South Broad Street, Suite 2100 

Philadelphia, PA 19107 

Telephone: (215) 238-1700 

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

CLINTON HECK,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARC STERN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5030RJB

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S

 MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

 INJUNCTION, GRANTING LEAVE

 TO AMEND AND DENYING

 REQUEST FOR COUNSEL

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant

to Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. The plaintiff has been granted leave to

proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. # 7). Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for preliminary

injunction. (Dkt. # 10).

Plaintiff advises the court that he is now in agreement with defendants that there is presently

no need for an injunction, as his prescribed medication has been approved for four months. Plaintiff

seeks leave to amend his original complaint to “cure all deficiencies,” and also asks that the court

appoint counsel on his behalf. The court will first address plaintiff’s request for counsel.

Case 3:06-cv-05030-RJB Document 20 Filed 05/10/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER- 2

1. Request for Counsel

There is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Although the court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), can request counsel to represent a party proceeding

in forma pauperis, the court may do so only in exceptional circumstances. Wilborn v. Escalderon,

789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984);

Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980). A finding of exceptional circumstances requires

an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Wilborn, 789 F.2d

at 1331.

Plaintiff has demonstrated an adequate ability to articulate his claims pro se. Plaintiff has

presented no evidence of exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff

must be able to show how the legal issues involved are complex and also must make a showing that

it is likely he will succeed on the merits. He has not done so. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to

appoint counsel (Dkt. # 15) is DENIED.

2. Amended Complaint

Plaintiff asks that he be allowed to amend his complaint to “cure all deficiencies.” That

motion (Dkt. # 15) is GRANTED, and plaintiff shall have until May 30, 2006 to file an amended

complaint. Plaintiff is advised that the court will review the amended filing to determine whether it

properly states a claim before this case is allowed to proceed. 

3. Preliminary Injunction

Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (Dkt. # 10) is STRICKEN from the court’s

docket.

DATED this 10th day of May, 2006. 

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05030-RJB Document 20 Filed 05/10/06 Page 2 of 2
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Reconnaissanceof the ore deposits in northern Yuma County, Arizona**
 
Report | Plate
 
SuDoc Number: I19.3:451
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000959491
 
August 8, 2018
#### Jose CENDEJAS-SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 00-70009.

I & NS No. [ AXX XXX XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted June 6, 2001.

Decided June 25, 2001.

Before KOZINSKI and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and WHYTE, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

The case is remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals for reconsideration in light of *In*re *Robin Juraine Crammond,*2001 WL 312775 (BIA March 22, 2001).

VACATED AND REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Not For Publication in West's Federal Reporter Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3 

# United Stat es Court of Appeals

For the First C ircuit

No. 03-1375 JOHN TOOLIN, Plaintiff, Appellant,

v. STEVE WHITE, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. George Z. Singal, U.S. District Judge ]
Before Boudin, Chief Judge , Selya and Lipez, Circuit Judges .
John Toolin on brief pro se.

March 18, 20041 Toolin is currently incarcerated, apparently for an unrelated

case. -2-

Per Curiam . Pro se plaintiff-appellant Jo hn T oolin, a prisoner, appeals from the district court's sua sponte dismissal of his civil rights complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). We review the dismissal of Toolin's complaint de novo , accepting all of the w ell -pleaded factual allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Calhoun v. DeTella , 319 F.3d 936, 939 (7th Cir. 2003); see Soto-Negron v. Taber Partners I , 339 F.3d 35, 38 (1st Cir. 2003). We have revi ewed Toolin's brief and the record on appeal. We affirm t h e dismissal of Toolin's complaint, but on a basis different from the district court.

In his complaint, Toolin alleges that he was deprived of additional, discretionary "administrative days" which would have shortened the length of his sentence. 1 The dist rict court said that Toolin's claims are not cognizable under Heckv. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because they would imply the invalidity of the sentence--a position supported by Heck 's exten sion in Edwards v. Balisok , 520 U.S. 641 (1997), to cover disciplinary determinations that affect the length of a sentence.

There is some division of views as to whether the Heck and Edwards bar applies after release of the prisoner, when habeas is no longer available. But Toolin does not argue this point and-3-

we see no reason to address it since, in any event, the complaint does not allege deprivation of a constitutional right. The materials that Toolin has himself submitted show that the credits sought were discretionary and, in the absence of a specific unconstitutional motive, there is no due process violation. Cf. Olsen v. Correiro , 189 F.3d 5 2, 66 n.16 (1st Cir. 1999) (noting that, to prevail in § 1983 suit, plaintiff must establish that defendants deprived him of constitutional right).

The judgment of the district court is summarily affirmed on this alternative basis. See 1st Cir. R. 27(c).
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Geologyand oil resources of the Santa Maria oil district, Santa Barbara County,California**
 
Report | Plate
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:322
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000957798
 
July 26, 2018
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2011-1089 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2011-NM-110-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
Exhibit 32.1



HYDRODYNEX, INC.



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS



In connection with the periodic Report of
HYDRODYNEX, INC., a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K for the
period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the Report), I, RONALD KUNISAKI, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter
63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my
knowledge:



(1) the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.



This Certification has not been, and shall
not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



Date: May 20, 2009

| |                 |                    
| | --------------- | -------------------
| |                 |                    
| |                
| | By:             | /s/ Ronald Kunisaki
| | Ronald Kunisaki
| |                



In connection with the periodic Report of
HYDRODYNEX, INC., a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K for the
period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the Report), I, RICHARD KUNISAKI, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter
63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my
knowledge:



(1) the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.



This Certification has not been, and shall
not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



Date: May 20, 2009

| |                  |                     
| | ---------------- | --------------------
| |                  |                     
| |                 
| | By:              | /s/ Richard Kunisaki
| | Richard
Kunisaki
Case No. 12,946.

#### SLOAN et al. v. The A. E. I.

[Bee, 250.] 1

District Court, D. South Carolina.

Jan. 18, 1808.

Bottomry — Foreign Port — Necessity.

Hypothecation can only be in a foreign port, and under circumstances of absolute necessity, where relief cannot be had but by pledging the ship.

■ [Cited in The Hunter, Case No. 6,904; Joy v. Allen, Id. 7.552.]

[Before BEE, District Judge.]

This ship, belonging to Thomas Wright, James Bixby, and the captain, sailed from hence to Liverpool, with a cargo belonging to Sloan & M’Millan (the actors in this cause,) the freight of which amounted to £1878 sterling. The cargo having been delivered, it was found necessary to repair the ship. The actors advanced the money for this purpose, and a further sum to the captain, for all which the latter drew a bill of £1362 sterling. He was, himself, half owner of the vessel; and the bill was drawn on Wright, another part owner, and on Nathaniel Bixby, who appears to have had an interest in the cargo. James Bixby, the other part owner, is not noticed in the bill, which .was protested on the 9th of December last. On the 23d of that month, Haley signed a paper, in Charleston, purporting to be an hypothecation of the ship for £938. 15s. and states therein that the hypothecation had been dispensed with in Liverpool, from a persuasion that the money advanced would be repaid on the ship’s arrival here. The claimants, in their plea and answer, state that Haley did not apply to the libellants to advance money for these repairs, till after the ship had discharged her outward bound cargo, and they, as consignees, had received the freight.

The judge said that the principles of the law of hypothecation were fully laid down in Hopkinson’s Bep. 163 to 199, inclusive. That he had been guided by those principles in several former decisions, and should continue to be so, till a decision of the supreme court of the United States should furnish a different precedent. In this case the paper pretending to be a deed of hypothecation had not been entered into until the vessel had got back to this port, and the bill drawn on the owners had been protested. No distress on the part of the captain had been proved; money was advanced as he wanted it, evidently on personal credit, and not on that of the ship. The libel was dismissed with costs.