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





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350


ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES—OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of LifeHealthCare, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Martin C.
Licht,  Executive Vice-President of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. §1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 that to 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.





By:
                /s/
      Martin
      C. LichtMartin
      C. LichtExecutive
      Vice-President Executive OfficerDate:
      January 13, 2009




In
connection with the Annual Report of LifeHealthCare, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John Grippo, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to 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.





By:
                /s/
      John
      GrippoJohn
      GrippoChief
      Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)Date:
      January 13, 2009




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to LifeHealthCare, Inc. and will be retained
by LifeHealthCare, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,132,145
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,741,852
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (234,097)
<INVENTORY>                                  4,005,639
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,043,603
<PP&E>                                       3,120,954
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,419,143)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,877,802
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,488,720
<BONDS>                                        368,114
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,238
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,228,108
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,877,802
<SALES>                                     18,967,442
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,009,737
<CGS>                                       11,777,513
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,777,513
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            11,201,002
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             119,999
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,913,659)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (186,518)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,727,141)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,727,141)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.12)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.1

                             FORM 10-K CERTIFICATION

      I, Anthony N. Renzi, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed the annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
2005, and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports
filed in respect of periods included in the year covered by that annual report,
of the trust (the "Trust") created pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement dated June 29, 2005 (the "P&S Agreement") among Residential Asset
Mortgage Products, Inc. (the "Company"), GMAC Mortgage Corporation (the
"Servicer") and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (the "Trustee");

      2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state
a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading as of the
last day of the period covered by that annual report;

      3. Based on my knowledge, the servicing information required to be
provided to the Trustee by the Servicer under the P&S Agreement is included in
these reports;

      4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the Servicer
under the P&S Agreement and based upon my knowledge and the review required
under the P&S Agreement, and, except as disclosed in the report, the Servicer
has fulfilled its obligations under the P&S Agreement; and

      5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
Servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report
provided by an independent public accountant , after conducting a review in
compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers, or
similar procedure, as set forth in the P&S Agreement, that is included in these
reports.

      In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company.

Date:   March 28, 2006


        /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
        ----------------------------
Name:   Anthony N. Renzi
Title:  Executive Vice President
A I R QUA LI T Y M ANAGEME NT SECTION STA T E OF D ELAWARE D EP AR T M ENT OF N AT UR A L R ESOURCES &**II ~O** **NMEN AL**  C ON T ROL DI V IS IO N OF A I R & WA S TE MANAGEMENT 156 S
. STAT E STREET D OVER , DE L AWARE 1 9 901 

### Mr

. Lyle Laverty, Assistant Secretary Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department ofInterior 1849 C Street, NW Wa shington, DC 20240 Dear Mr. Laverty: T ELEPHO N E: (302) 739**~** 9 4 02 F AX N o.: (302) 739**~** 3106

Thank you for your June 27, 2008 letter to Secretary Hughes on Delaware's draft Visibility State Implementation Plan**(SIP)~** As you know this SIP is the first of a series of actions that Delaware will take to aid in the achievement of natural visibility conditions at all of our nations Class I areas. I agree that cooperative efforts between our organizations, Class I states, and regional planning org anizations are essential for us to continue to make progress toward the Clean Air Act's goal of achievement of natural visibility conditions at all Federal Class I areas by 2064. Despite this being the first step in a process that extends through the next fifty six (56) years, I am proud of what Delaware has accomplished

. Through the consultation process, sulfur dioxide was detennined to affect the maximum impact on visibility impainnent. As you no-doubt gleaned from our draft SIP , Delaware will redu ce sulfur dioxide more than seventy four (74) percent by the first pro gram milestone (i.e ., 2018)

. Other visibility impairing pollutants are projected to decrease by twenty four (24) percent. These s ignificant reduction s are due to actions that include stringent reg ulation of Delaware ' s coal and residual oil fir ed power plants, the regulation of lightering op e rations in the Delaware Bay, variou s regulato ry and enforcement actions at our petroleum refiner y , and many others. Delaware remains comm i tted to continue to do it s fair share toward achievement of visibility goals. My staff is now reviewing your c ommen ts, and in response we are making several changes to our draft SIP. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3) Delaware will include a description of how it addr e ssed each of your comments as part of our SIP adoption process. At this point we anticipate holding a public hearin g at the end of Sept emb er. We appreciate the help you have provid ed , and lo ok f orward to working cooperativel y in the fu ture . Plea s e do not h es itate t o contac t me at ( 3 02 ) 739- 94 02 if you have question s or nee d additiona l infonnation

.

# ;:;I**~~** R

o nald A. Amirikian Plannin g Branch Manager

PR I "lED ON RE C YCLED**"' P~R**
---

Exhibit 7

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

In connection with the annual report of Baja Mining Corp. (the Company) on Form 40-F for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John W. Greenslade, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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.

March 29, 2010
     /s/ John GreensladeJohn GreensladePresident and Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Baja Mining Corp. and will be retained by Baja Mining Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
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

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION

TO EXTEND INDICTMENT DEADLINE - 1

MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARNOLD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JARRAY ANTWON BROWN,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. 06-5035M

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED

MOTION TO EXTEND INDICTMENT

DEADLINE

Upon the stipulation of the parties to extend the indictment deadline and the

waiver of right to speedy indictment executed by the defendant, the Court finds that such

an extension would serve the ends of justice and outweighs the interests of the public

and the defendant in a speedy indictment; now, therefore,

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:06-cr-05423-FDB Document 14 Filed 04/06/06 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

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION

TO EXTEND INDICTMENT DEADLINE - 2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the indictment deadline be extended to May 11,

2006. The period of delay resulting from this extension is hereby excluded for speedy

trial purposes under 18 U.S.C. §3161(h).

DONE this 6th day of April, 2006.

/s/ J. Kelley Arnold J. KELLEY ARNOLD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Presented by:

/s/ 

MIRIAM F. SCHWARTZ

Attorney for Defendant

/s/ 

J. TATE LONDON

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:06-cr-05423-FDB Document 14 Filed 04/06/06 Page 2 of 2
[Go Back]
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ANDRES TERRAZAS

,

Appellant,

v

.

BESAI TERRAZAS

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 5

- 00 159

- CV

Appeal from the

65 th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2015DCM2535 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion for determination of whether it should

be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. On May 5, 2015, an associate judge entered a protective

order against Appellant, Andres Terrazas. Appellant did not waive his right to a de novo hearing

before the referring court. The following day, Appellant filed with the El Paso County D istrict

Clerk a notice of appeal and objections to the associate judge’s findings and order

. The District

Clerk forwarded the notice of appeal and a docketing certificate to this Court. Appellant’s

attorney has since notified the Court that the notice of appeal should not have been filed in this

Court because Appellant is appealing the associate judge ’s recommendation to the referring

court, and he requests that we return the case to the district court. This Court does not have

jurisdiction to review the order o f the associate judge when a party has timely requested a de

novo hearing before the referring court

. See T EX .F AM .C ODE A NN

. §§ 201.013(b), 201.014,

201.015 (West 20 14 ). Accordingly, we dismiss th e appeal for want of jurisdiction.- 2

- STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice

May 2 2 , 2015

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
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 ORD ON NOTICE OF RMVL - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

WASBASH NATIONAL CORPORATION, et

al.,

Defendant(s).

NO. C06-57P

 STANDING ORDER REQUIRING 

 SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION 

 REGARDING REMOVAL

 

Upon removal of the action and for good cause, the court orders the removing defendant or

defendants within seven (7) days of the date of this order to serve and file a submission providing the

following information:

1. Have all defendants served at the time of removal joined in the removal? Provide a full

explanation if all defendants served at the time of removal did not join in the notice of

removal.

2. On what date was the first defendant served? On what date was the notice of removal

filed? Provide a full explanation if the notice of removal was dated more than thirty

(30) days after the first defendant was served.

3. If the action has been removed on grounds of diversity jurisdiction, is any defendant

served at the time of removal a citizen of the forum state?

4. If the action has been removed on grounds of diversity jurisdiction, state the citizenship

of all named plaintiffs and all named defendants (including the citizenship of all

members or partners in any non-corporate party), if such states of citizenship were not

set forth in the notice of removal.

5. If the action has been removed on grounds of diversity jurisdiction, state the amount of

damages in controversy.

Case 2:06-cv-00057-MJP Document 4 Filed 01/18/06 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 ORD ON NOTICE OF RMVL - 2

If the plaintiff has a response to defendants’ submission, such response, if any, shall be filed

and served within seven (7) days of the date of defendants’ submission. Any motion to remand the

action to state court based on any procedural defects in the removal must be filed thirty (30) days after

removal or sooner. See 28 U.S.C. §1447(c).

The clerk is directed to send copies of this order to all counsel of record.

Dated: January 18, 2006

AMarsha J. Pechman

U.S. District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00057-MJP Document 4 Filed 01/18/06 Page 2 of 2
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 30, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00707-CR

STEVEN BERNELL PENTON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 149th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 65544-A

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal from the order of the Court of 

Criminal Appeals denying his application for post-conviction writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. An article 

11.07 writ of habeas corpus is returnable to the Court of Criminal Appeals, and 

that court’s decision cannot be appealed to this court. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc.

art. 11.07, § 3. Only the Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction to review post-
2

conviction habeas corpus proceedings. Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 

S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. 

Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist., 910 S. W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1995) (holding that article 11.07 provides the exclusive means to challenge a 

final felony conviction). 

This court lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal from the order on 

appellant’s post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, we 

dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Busby.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
III

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 248

Condemning the brutal killing of Mr. James Byrd, Jr., and commending

the Community of Jasper, Texas for the manner in which it has come

together in response.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 15, 1998

Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. GRAMM, and Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN)

submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Condemning the brutal killing of Mr. James Byrd, Jr., and

commending the Community of Jasper, Texas for the

manner in which it has come together in response.

Whereas Mr. James Byrd, Jr., of Jasper, Texas, was brutally

murdered on June 6, 1998;

Whereas since this heinous tragedy, the citizens of Jasper,

from all segments of the community, have come together

to condemn the killing and honor the memory of Mr.

Byrd;

Whereas the Sheriff of Jasper County, Billy Rowles, spoke

for the community when he appealed that the Nation not

‘‘label us because of this random, brutal act’’;
2

•SRES 248 ATS

Whereas Mr. and Mrs. James Byrd, Sr., called for ‘‘justice

and peace’’, asking that ‘‘we . . . get this over and put

this behind us’’; and

Whereas the community’s response reflects the spirit that

other communities across the Nation have shown in the

face of recent incidents of random and senseless violence:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate—

2 (1) condemns the actions which occurred in

3 Jasper, Texas as horrific and intolerable, to be re4 jected by all Americans;

5 (2) expresses its deepest condolences to the

6 Byrd family for their loss and the pain it caused;

7 (3) notes the strong religious faith of the Byrd

8 family, under the inspired leadership of James Sr.,

9 and Stella Byrd, and the Reverend Kenneth Lyons,

10 Pastor of the Greater New Bethel Baptist Church,

11 that has helped the family through this most trying

12 time;

13 (4) sees in the Byrd family reaction to this

14 tragedy the inspiration for hope, peace, and justice

15 in Jasper and throughout the United States;

16 (5) commends the leadership shown by Jasper

17 County Sheriff Billy Rowles, City of Jasper Mayor

18 R.C. Horn, and other community leaders in respond19 ing to this tragedy;
3

•SRES 248 ATS

1 (6) urges that law enforcement officials at all

2 appropriate levels continue with the full and fair in3 vestigation into all of the facts of the case; and

4 (7) urges prosecutors to proceed with a fair and

5 speedy trial to bring the perpetrators of this out6 rageous crime to justice.

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

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-41570 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus STEVEN CRAIG HALLSTEAD, also known as Craig Hallsted, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:98-CR-41-1

- - - - - - - - - - July 6, 1999 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Steven Craig Hallstead pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit a theft of trade secrets of Intel Corporation. He challenges the district court’s increase of his offense level by Intel’s research and development costs to produce the product which Hallstead sought to sell to Intel’s competitor before the product was to be put on the open market. Hallstead contends that the fair market value of the product (the price Intel intended to sell the product when sold to its customers severalNo. 98-41570 -2- months after Hallstead attempted to sell it) was ascertainable and that the district court clearly erred by not using the fair market value when calculating Hallstead’s sentence. He also argues that the evidence did not sufficiently support the district court’s valuation of the research and development costs for the product and that the amount determined by the district court was clearly erroneous. The district court’s calculation of the amount of the loss involved in the offense is a factual finding, and we review it for clear error. United States v. Wimbish , 980 F.2d 312, 313 (5th Cir. 1992). Our review of the record reveals that there was no market for the product Hallstead sought to sell at the time of the offense, and the district court did not err, clearly or otherwise, in not using a fair market value to calculate the loss involved in the offense. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, comment. (n.2). The record further reveals that there was sufficient evidence supporting, and the district court did not clearly err with respect to, the amount determined as Intel’s research and development costs for the product involved in Hallstead’s offense. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s motion to limit disclosure of confidential information of Intel in any published opinion is GRANTED.