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

10-K Exhibit 32.1: Certifications 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 iShares Silver Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Lee T. Kranefuss, Chief Executive Officer of Barclays Global Investors International, Inc., the Sponsor of the Trust, 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, as amended; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Trust.

Date: February 27, 2009



|                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    Lee T. Kranefuss                                                 
|Lee T. Kranefuss * Chief Executive Officer (Principal executive officer)





|* | The Registrant is a trust and Mr. Kranefuss is signing in his capacity as an officer of Barclays Global Investors International, Inc., the Sponsor of the Registrant.
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional information - sanitized
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-13-00411-CR

IN RE Ali MAYBERRY

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 17, 2013

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED; 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

On June 26, 2013, relator Ali Mayberry filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus and 

petition for writ of habeas corpus, complaining of the trial court’s denial of his pro se motions for

speedy trial and requesting that this court order the district court to reverse his convictions and 

dismiss the charges against him. 

With regard to the petition for writ of mandamus, mandamus relief is not available with 

respect to rulings on speedy trial motions because there is an adequate remedy by appeal. Smith 

v. Gohmert, 962 S.W.2d 590, 593 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); In re Denney, No. 04-12-00413-CR, 

2012 WL 2914961, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 18, 2012, orig. proceeding) (not 

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 2012CR2540;2012CR2541;2012CR2542, styled The State of Texas v. Ali 

Mayberry, pending in the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Angus McGinty 

presiding.

 
04-13-00411-CR

designated for publication). Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.8(a).

With regard to the petition for writ of habeas corpus, this court, as an intermediate court of 

appeals, is not authorized to grant the relief requested. Pursuant to section 22.221(d) of the Texas 

Government Code, in civil matters, a court of appeals “may issue a writ of habeas corpus when it 

appears that the restraint of liberty is by virtue of an order, process, or commitment issued by a 

court or judge because of the violation of an order, judgment, or decree previously made, rendered, 

or entered by the court or judge in a civil case.” TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d) (West 2004). 

In criminal matters, however, an intermediate court of appeals has no original habeas corpus 

jurisdiction. Chavez v. State, 132 S.W.3d 509, 510 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.); 

Watson v. State, 96 S.W.3d 497, 500 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2002, pet. ref’d); Dodson v. State, 988 

S.W.2d 833, 835 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, no pet.). In criminal matters, the courts 

authorized to issue writs of habeas corpus are the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, district courts, 

and county courts. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.05 (West 2005). Therefore, the 

petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

- 2 -
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET, AND STATEMENT OF INCOME, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,217
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,083
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,031
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,459
<PP&E>                                           4,708
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,445
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,161
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,030
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            18
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,266
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,161
<SALES>                                         24,988
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,988
<CGS>                                           19,272
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,905
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 109
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,010
<INCOME-TAX>                                       762
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,248
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,248
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .203
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .203
        

</TABLE>
No. 64611.

#### Gimbel Bros., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 59/30226 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the principles herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C.C.P.A. 112, C.A.D. 351), and that ease 1842/3, reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, was not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited, it was held that duty is not assessable upon case 1842/3, which was reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protest was sustained to this extent.
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

GUTAMA JOTE DINKA,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. CR06-0118-RSM-JPD

DETENTION ORDER 

Offenses Charged: 

Count 1: Conspiracy to Distribute Cocaine Base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

841(b)(1)(A), and 846.

Counts 2 through 6: Possession of Cocaine Base with Intent to Distribute in violation

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 841(b)(1)(C).

Count 7: Unlawful Possession of Firearms and Ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2).

Date of Detention Hearing: April 10, 2006.

The Court, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), and

based upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for detention hereafter set forth, finds:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), there is a rebuttable presumption that defendant

is a flight risk and a danger to the community based on the nature of the pending charges. 

Case 2:06-cr-00118-RSM Document 5 Filed 04/11/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 2

(2) Defendant has stipulated to detention, but reserves the right to contest his

continued detention if there is a change in circumstances.

(3) There appear to be no conditions or combination of conditions other than

detention that will reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance at future Court hearings or the

safety of the community. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody of the

Attorney General for confinement in a correction facility separate, to the extent

practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with

counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which defendant

is confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose

of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding; and

(4) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to counsel for the United States, to

counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the United States

Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 10th day of April 10, 2006.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cr-00118-RSM Document 5 Filed 04/11/06 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.2**

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

In connection withthe quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sepracor Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, DavidP. Southwell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)   the Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
| Date:  August 9, 2005 |                      |
|----------------------------|---------------------------|
|                       | /s/ DAVID P. SOUTHWELL    |
|                       | David P. Southwell        |
|                       | *Chief Financial Officer* |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Sepracor Inc. and will beretained by Sepracor Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-28-1999
<CASH>                                      12,397,150
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               49,452,837
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,598,400
<INVENTORY>                                 46,090,816
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           116,182,791
<PP&E>                                      19,560,618
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             166,213,771
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       52,009,750
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,471
<OTHER-SE>                                 100,649,522
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               166,213,771
<SALES>                                     82,150,779
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            82,150,779
<CGS>                                       47,587,099
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               47,587,099
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            25,905,958
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               153,002
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             422,876
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              9,449,342
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,212,777
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,935,352
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,935,352
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .42


</TABLE>
# Official Journal C 55/4 Ma

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 55 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 484 March 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 55

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 484 March 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 055/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2005/C 055/2 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3708 — Apollo/DirecTV/Hughes Network Systems) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 2 |
| 2005/C 055/3 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3700 — EDP/LogicaCMG/Edinfor) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 3 |
| 2005/C 055/4 | COM documents other than legislative proposals adopted by the Commission | 4 |
| 2005/C 055/5 | Ex-post publicity of Eurostat grants in 2004 | 5 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2005/C 055/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2005/C 055/2

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3708 — Apollo/DirecTV/Hughes Network Systems) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

2

2005/C 055/3

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3700 — EDP/LogicaCMG/Edinfor) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

3

2005/C 055/4

COM documents other than legislative proposals adopted by the Commission

4

2005/C 055/5

Ex-post publicity of Eurostat grants in 2004

Ex-post

5

---

| | II   Preparatory Acts |
| --- | --- |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 055/6 | Legislative proposals adopted by the Commission | 6 |

II   Preparatory Acts

Commission

2005/C 055/6

Legislative proposals adopted by the Commission

6

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
----

----

LifeHealthCare, Inc. 10-K for September 30,2009

| CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO |
|--------------------------------|

| 18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350 |
|-----------------------------|

| ADOPTED      PURSUANT TO |
|--------------------------|

| SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES—OXLEY ACT OF2002 |
|---------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (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 periodsindicated. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   | By:    | /s/      John      Grippo                                  |
|--------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   | John      Grippo                                           |
|   |   |   | Chief      Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) |
|   |   |   |                                                       |
|   |   |   | Date:  January      13, 2010                     |
1

The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3524

___________

Suleiman A. Ibrahim, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Southern District of Iowa.

Metropolitan Transit Authority; *

Jim Tishim; David Allsup, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: January 5, 2007

Filed: January 12, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Suleiman Ibrahim appeals from the district court’s1

 order enforcing a settlement

agreement between Ibrahim and Metropolitan Transit Authority, arguing that his

attorney did not possess authority to enter into the settlement. Upon our careful

review of the record, we hold that the district court did not clearly err in concluding

that Ibrahim had granted his attorney authority to settle the case and that the
-2-

settlement agreement therefore bound Ibrahim. Accordingly, we affirm the district

court’s order enforcing the agreement. See 8th Cir. 47B. 

______________________________
# C_2018094EN.01002801.xml

| 12.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/28

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 18 January 2018 — Strabag Belgium v Parliament

(Case T-784/17 R)

((Application for interim relief - Public works contracts - Application for interim measures - Standstill period - Abnormally low bid - Prima facie case - Urgency - Weighing of the competing interests))

(2018/C 094/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Strabag Belgium (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: M. Schoups, K. Lemmens and M. Lahbib, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: Z. Nagy and B. Simon, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking, first, a suspension of execution of the Parliament’s decision of 24 November 2017 to reject the applicant’s tender and to award to five tenderers the framework contract involving general contractor works for the Parliament buildings in Brussels (Belgium) (call for tenders 06/D 20/2017/M036) and, second, an order requiring the Parliament to produce various documents.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Execution of the European Parliament’s decision of 24 November 2017 to reject Strabag Belgium’s tender and to award to five tenderers the framework contract involving general contractor works for Parliament buildings in Brussels (Belgium) (call for tenders 06/D 20/2017/M036) is suspended. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Execution of the European Parliament’s decision of 24 November 2017 to reject Strabag Belgium’s tender and to award to five tenderers the framework contract involving general contractor works for Parliament buildings in Brussels (Belgium) (call for tenders 06/D 20/2017/M036) is suspended.

| 2. | The remainder of the application is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The remainder of the application is dismissed.

| 3. | The order of 6 December 2017, Strabag Belgium v Parliament (T-784/17 R), is cancelled. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The order of 6 December 2017, Strabag Belgium v Parliament (T-784/17 R), is cancelled.

| 4. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The costs are reserved.

---
Order entered July 10, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00362-CR

No. 05-19-00363-CR

JOSE LOUIS DELUNA JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 219-83536-2018 & 219-83537-2018

ORDER

The reporter’s record was due May 6, 2019. When it was not timely filed, we notified 

court reporter Indu Bailey by postcard dated May 8, 2019 and directed her to file the reporter’s 

record by June 7, 2019. To date, the reporter’s record has not been filed and we have had no 

communication from Ms. Bailey. 

We ORDER the complete reporter’s record filed BY JULY 24, 2019. We caution Ms. 

Bailey that the failure to file the reporter’s record by that date will result in the Court taking 

whatever remedies it has available to ensure that the appeals proceed in a timely fashion, which 

may include ordering that she not sit until the complete reporter’s record is filed.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Jennifer Edgeworth, 

Presiding Judge, 219th Judicial District Court; Indu Bailey, official court reporter, 219th Judicial 

District Court; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III 

JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 129 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 129

Referring S. 1168 entitled ``A bill for the relief of retired Sergeant 
 First Class James D. Benoit, Wan Sook Benoit, and the estate of David 
  Benoit, and for other purposes'', to the chief judge of the United 
          States Court of Federal Claims for a report on bill.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 1, 1997

    Mr. Abraham (for himself and Mr. Levin) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

             October 15 (legislative day, October 2), 1998

             Committee discharged; considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Referring S. 1168 entitled ``A bill for the relief of retired Sergeant 
 First Class James D. Benoit, Wan Sook Benoit, and the estate of David 
  Benoit, and for other purposes'', to the chief judge of the United 
          States Court of Federal Claims for a report on bill.

    Resolved, That the bill S. 1168 entitled ``A bill for the relief of 
retired Sergeant First Class James D. Benoit, Wan Sook Benoit, and the 
estate of David Benoit, and for other purposes'', is referred, with all 
accompanying papers, to the chief judge of the United States Court of 
Federal Claims for a report in accordance with sections 1492 and 2509 
of title 28, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```