alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32 (I)

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

      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  AmeriResource  Technologies,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31,  2007  (the
"Report"),  as  filed  with the Securities and Exchange Commission, on the date
hereof (the "Report), the  undersigned, Delmar Janovec, Chief Executive Officer
and the person performing functions  similar  to  that of a Principal Financial
Officer  of  the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  1350,  as
adopted pursuant to 18 U.S.C., Section 1350, 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.


Dated: May 21, 2007           	    /s/ Delmar Janovec
				    ------------------------------------
                                    Delmar Janovec
                                    Chief Executive Officer and Principal
                                    Financial Officer
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-10747

Summary Calendar

NATALIE F. HIMES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

DALLAS/FORT WORTH MEDICAL CENTER-GRAND PRAIRIE; ET AL.,

Defendants,

DALLAS/FORT WORTH MEDICAL CENTER-GRAND PRAIRIE,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(4:98-CV-923-Y)

March 13, 2000

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Natalie F. Himes ("Himes") sued her former employer,

Dallas/Fort Worth Medical Center-Grand Prairie ("DFWMC"), and other

health care providers alleging religious discrimination in

violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, defamation,

blacklisting in violation of Texas Labor Code § 52.031, violation

of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and other state causes of action.
2

DFWMC answered and moved to stay prosecution of the suit and compel

arbitration pursuant to a written arbitration agreement which Himes

signed at the time she was first employed by DFWMC. The district

court granted the motion to stay and compel arbitration and Himes

appeals.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the reply brief, the

record excerpts, and relevant portions of the record itself. We

read the order granting stay and compelling arbitration entered on

May 25, 1999, as amended by order entered July 23, 1999, as being

an interlocutory order compelling arbitration in a proceeding in

which arbitration is embedded with claims on other grounds against

other parties. Accordingly, we do not have appellate jurisdiction

to determine the propriety of the district court’s order of May 25,

1999. See McDermott Int’l, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyds, 981

F.2d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 1993), and Altman Nursing, Inc. v. Clay

Capital Corp., 84 F.3d 769, 770 (5th Cir. 1996). 

APPEAL DISMISSED.
**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 Annual Report of Realty Finance Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel Farr, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result ofoperations of the Company. 

 

Date: March 16, 2009
Case 3:05-cr-05699-KLS Document 29 Filed 09/21/06 Page 1 of 1
July 18, 1963

Reap. Dec. 10566.

#### Bruce Duncan, a/c Goliath Distributors, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Reappraisements dismissed April 23, 1963.

Entered at Los Angeles, Oalif. (Not published.) Motion

by plaintiffs.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ANTHONY R

EED, Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. B RIAN W ILLIAM S, Sr. and ATTOR N EY GENER AL OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, R e sponde nts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-17490 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-00027-JAD-C W H
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Je nnife r A. Dorse y , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

June 16, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , FISHER , ** and N.R
. SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Anthony R e e d a p p e a l s the distric t c ourt’ s de n ia l of his 28 U.S.C . § 2254 fe de ra l ha be a s pe t ition. W e a ffirm
. 

# F IL ED
J UN 23 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble D. M ic h a e l Fishe r, Unite d Stat e s C irc uit Judge for the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Third C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion.The sta te c ourt’ s de t e rm i nation tha t R e e d’ s c ounse l ors we re not
c onstitutiona

lly ine ffe c tive for fa iling to obje c t to juror misc onduc t did not

“ re sult[] in a

de c ision tha

t wa s c ontra

ry to, or involve d a

n unre a s ona

b le a pplic ation of, c le arly e sta b l ishe d Fe de ra l la

w, a s de te rm ine d by

the Supre m e C ourt of the Unite d State s.” 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1). There is no e vide nc e tha t juror num

be r 244 e nga ge d in misc onduc t. Thus, there we re no le gitim ate grounds upon which R e e d’ s de fe nse c ounse lors c ould ha ve obje c te d. Thus, the ir de c ision not to obje c t to did not fall “be low a

n obje c tive sta

nda rd of re a sona

ble ne ss.” Strick

l and v

. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984). The re m a inde r of R e e d ’ s a

rgum e nts a

re not prope rly

be fore us, be c a

use R e e d ra ise d the m for the first tim e on a p pe a l. Se e Unite d State s v . C arlson , 900 F.2d 1346, 1349 (9th C ir. 1990). AFFIRM E D.

2
Case 2:06-cr-00214-JCC Document 19 Filed 06/27/06 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cr-00214-JCC Document 19 Filed 06/27/06 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cr-00214-JCC Document 19 Filed 06/27/06 Page 3 of 3
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

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

PARNELL EDWARDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5128RJB

ORDER GRANTING

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS AND

DIRECTING INSTITUTION TO

CALCULATE, COLLECT, AND

FORWARD PAYMENTS

The Court, having reviewed plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1), does

hereby find and ORDER. 

(1) Plaintiff’s declaration indicates he is unable to afford the court’s filing fee or give security

therefor. Accordingly, plaintiff’s application to proceed as a pauper is GRANTED. As set forth below,

an initial partial filing fee will be collected, and plaintiff is required to make monthly payments of

20 percent of the preceding months income credited to his/her account until the full amount of the

filing fee is satisfied.

(2) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and plaintiff’s approved application to proceed in forma

pauperis, the agency having custody of the above named plaintiff is directed to calculate an initial partial

filing fee equal to 20 percent of greater of -- the average monthly deposits to the prisoner’s account or the

average monthly balance in the prisoner’s account for the 6-month period immediately preceding the date

of this Order. The initial partial filing fee should be forwarded to the court clerk as soon as practicable.

Subsequently, if the prisoner’s account exceeds $10.00, each month the agency is directed to

Case 3:06-cv-05128-RJB Document 5 Filed 05/01/06 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

Page - 2

collect and forward payments equal to 20 percent of the prisoner’s preceding month’s income credited to

the prisoner’s account. In the event that the monthly payment would reduce the prisoner’s account below

$10.00, the agency should collect and forward only that amount which would reduce the prisoner’s

account to the $10.00 level. Please note that this $10.00 limit does not apply to the initial partial filing fee

described above. Finally, the monthly payments should be collected and forwarded to the court until the

entire filing fee ($250.00) for this matter has been paid.

(3) The Clerk is directed to send plaintiff a copy of this Order and the General Order, and a copy

of this Order along with a copy of plaintiff’s Acknowledgment and Authorization portion of the IFP

application to the attention of the inmate account manager (IFP account manager) at the Washington State

Department of Corrections.

DATED this 1st day of May, 2006.

 /s/ J. Kelley Arnold____________ J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05128-RJB Document 5 Filed 05/01/06 Page 2 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

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JAMES ERNEST DICKERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROL PORTER, et al,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5236FDB-KLS

ORDER

This case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Magistrates’ Rules (MJR) 1, 3 and 4. This matter is on hold while plaintiff

cures certain defects in his application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Plaintiff has filed several motions in this matter, including three motions for subpoenas (Dkt. #3-#5)

and a motion for protective order (Dkt. #8). While these matters normally would be ripe for review at this

time or soon will be so, the Court does not intend to allow this case to go forward until the in forma

pauperis issues noted in the order to show cause issued the same date herewith have been resolved. 

Case 3:06-cv-05236-FDB Document 11 Filed 06/15/06 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

Page - 2

Accordingly, the above noted motions (Dkt. #3-5, #8) hereby are re-noted for July 31, 2006. 

DATED this 15th day of June, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05236-FDB Document 11 Filed 06/15/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Vertical Communications, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William Y. Tauscher, 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 (the
Act), 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |                        
|------------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Dated: February 14, 2007 |  | /s/ William Y. Tauscher
|                         |  | William Y. Tauscher    
|                         |  | Chief Executive Officer



45
Portfolios of Hypothetical Credit Card Accounts Data Definitions

Variable Mnemonic Description

Account origination year accountoriginationyear Yearin which the original

credit card was issued

Month‐end account status activeflag Whether the account has had

any debit, credit, or balance

activity in the last 12 months

at month‐end:

0 is open and active

1 is other

Income at origination borrowerincome Borrower’sincome

Credit card type creditcardtype Credit card type:

1 is general purpose

2 is private label

Current credit limit currentcreditlimit Maximum dollar amount that

may be borrowed on the

account during the reporting

month, as of month‐end

Cycle ending balance cycleendingbalance Total outstanding balance for

the account at the end of the

current month’s cycle

Interest rate at cycle end cycleendingretailapr Purchase APR

Days past due dayspastdue Actual number of days the

account is past due as of the

current reporting month’s

cycle date

Month‐end close status monthendclosedrevokedflag Whether, in the current

reporting month, the account

is closed or revoked and has

no further charging

privileges:

0 is not closed

1 is closed

Original credit limit originalcreditlimit Original credit limit

Product type producttype Product type:

1 is co‐brand

2 is other

Refreshed creditscore

(FICO® Scores)1

refreshedcreditscoreprimaryborrower The most recently updated

credit score available for the

primary account holder at

origination using a

commercially available credit

bureau score 1 The Federal Reserve maps to FICO® Scores as an input to its credit card loss model, because these

scores are the most widely used commercially available credit scores in the historical data used for

estimation.
<PAGE>   1
            EXHIBIT 11.1. COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              THREE MONTHS                         SIX MONTHS
                                                              ENDED JUNE 30                       ENDED JUNE 30
                                                      ----------------------------        ----------------------------
                                                         1997              1996              1997              1996
                                                      ----------         ---------       -----------         ---------
<S>                                                   <C>                <C>             <C>                 <C>  
Net income (loss)                                     $1,202,000         $(935,000)      $    3,000        $(1,618,000)
                                                      ==========         =========       ===========         =========

Weighted average common shares outstanding            11,405,000         5,180,000         9,199,000         4,986,000

Adjustment to reflect requirements of
    the Securities and Exchange Commission
    (Effect of SAB 83)                                      --             994,000              --             994,000
                                                                         
Net effect of dilutive common share equivalents
   based on the treasury stock method                  3,251,000              --           3,251,000              --
                                                      ----------         ---------        ----------         ---------

Shares used in computing net income
   (loss) per share                                   14,656,000         6,174,000        12,315,000         5,980,000
                                                      ==========         =========        ==========         =========

Net income (loss) per share
                                                      $     0.08         $   (0.15)       $     0.00         $   (0.27)
                                                      ==========         =========        ==========         =========
</TABLE>





                                       14
(Reap. Dec. 11076)

#### Anthony B. Bowers *v.*United States

Entry No. 3992.

(Decided October 13, 1965)

*Sharp, Solter & Butohis,on*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*618Rao, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by tbe undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court :

> 1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 T.D. 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, etseq.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> 5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
IV

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 115

Expressing the support of the Congress for activities to increase public

awareness of the dangers of pediatric cancer.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 25, 1999

Mr. FORBES submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Commerce

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the support of the Congress for activities to

increase public awareness of the dangers of pediatric cancer.

Whereas 8,000 to 10,000 children are diagnosed and approximately 1,700 die from cancer each year making cancer

the chief cause of death by disease of children under 15

in the United States;

Whereas the number of children diagnosed with cancer each

year has risen from 12 per 100,000 in the 1970s to 14

per 100,000 today;

Whereas early detection and treatment can greatly increase

the chances of survival;

Whereas cancer in children is often difficult to recognize and

parents should be alert to any unusual symptoms; and
2

•HCON 115 IH

Whereas the President and the Federal Government should

take a leadership role in educating the public about the

potential dangers of pediatric cancer: Now, therefore, be

it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) supports efforts by national, State, and

4 local entities, both public and private, to heighten

5 public awareness of the dangers of pediatric cancer

6 and the importance of regular medical examinations

7 for children; and

8 (2) encourages Federal agencies and depart9 ments to actively support efforts, both public and

10 private, to increase public awareness of the dangers

11 of pediatric cancer and the importance of regular

12 medical examinations for children.

Æ
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

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

DARRELL JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROL PORTER et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5342RBL

ORDER GRANTING

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS AND

DIRECTING INSTITUTION TO

CALCULATE, COLLECT, AND

FORWARD PAYMENTS

The Court, having reviewed plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1), does

hereby find and ORDER. 

(1) Plaintiff’s declaration indicates he is unable to afford the court’s filing fee or give security

therefor. Accordingly, plaintiff’s application to proceed as a pauper is GRANTED. As set forth below,

an initial partial filing fee will be collected, and plaintiff is required to make monthly payments of

20 percent of the preceding months income credited to his/her account until the full amount of the

filing fee is satisfied.

(2) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and plaintiff’s approved application to proceed in forma

pauperis, the agency having custody of the above named plaintiff is directed to calculate an initial partial

filing fee equal to 20 percent of greater of -- the average monthly deposits to the prisoner’s account or the

average monthly balance in the prisoner’s account for the 6-month period immediately preceding the date

Case 3:06-cv-05342-RBL Document 7 Filed 08/28/06 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

Page - 2

of this Order. The initial partial filing fee should be forwarded to the court clerk as soon as practicable.

Subsequently, if the prisoner’s account exceeds $10.00, each month the agency is directed to

collect and forward payments equal to 20 percent of the prisoner’s preceding month’s income credited to

the prisoner’s account. In the event that the monthly payment would reduce the prisoner’s account below

$10.00, the agency should collect and forward only that amount which would reduce the prisoner’s

account to the $10.00 level. Please note that this $10.00 limit does not apply to the initial partial filing fee

described above. Finally, the monthly payments should be collected and forwarded to the court until the

entire filing fee ($350.00) for this matter has been paid.

(3) The Clerk is directed to send plaintiff a copy of this Order and the General Order, and a copy

of this Order along with a copy of plaintiff’s Acknowledgment and Authorization portion of the IFP

application to the attention of the inmate account manager (IFP account manager) at the Washington State

Department of Corrections.

DATED this 28th day of August, 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05342-RBL Document 7 Filed 08/28/06 Page 2 of 2