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


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary C. Evans, chairman and chief executive officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.


March 18, 2014/s/ Gary C. EvansGary C. Evans,Chairman and Chief Executive Officer





In connection with the Annual Report of Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph C. Daches, chief financial officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.


March 18, 2014/s/ Joseph C. DachesJoseph C. Daches,Chief Financial Officer
No. 54472.

#### Maxfield & McLeer, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 144289-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Case No. 7,766.

#### KIDD et al. v. SWARTWOUT.

[10 Hunt, Mer. Mag. 81.]

Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

Nov., 1843.

Customs Duties — Free Entry — American Products — Reimportation.

[1. The inference is against a party claiming that imported goods are Amerian products, entitled to entry free of duty, under act of 1799, i 47 (1 Stat. 662)].

[2. The right under act of 1799, § 47 (1 Stat. 662), to reimport exported American products free of duty, is not affected by a sale of a part thereof in a foreign port.]

[This was an action by Benjamin Kidd and others against Samuel Swartwout, collector, to recover duties wrongfully exacted.]

BETTS, District Judge.

In 1836, the plaintiffs, through Grinnell & Minturn, their agents, purchased and shipped a quantity of wheat and flour from New York, consigned to George Wilde & Co., of London, to be sold for their account. Upon its arrival in London it was entered at the custom-house, where it continued under the custom-house lock and key. It appeared that the sale was lost in London, and it was reshipped by George Wilde & Co., and consigned to Grinnell, Min-turn & Co. On its arrival in New York, the consignees claimed to have it entered as American produce. The collector, however, refused, on the ground that it had changed hands, and compelled Grinnell, Minturn & Co. to pay the duties on it, amounting to $3,-436.29. Mr. Grinnell entered a protest at the time, and the present action is brought to have refunded those duties.

After the plaintiffs’ counsel had closed his case, the district attorney sta ted that he did not intend to make any defence, except merely to see that the plaintiffs had made out their case, and, if so, he had no objection to their getting a verdict, and having those duties refunded. He said the question here turned on the construction of the 47th section of the act of 1799, in relation to American produce sent out of this country, and afterwards reshipped. He then read the section alluded to, which stated that, on American produce brought back, no duty should be demanded, provided certain regulations therein mentioned were complied with. He thought the identity of the flour was not sufficiently proved, nor was there any evidence of those regulations being complied with. Judge BETTS charged that, if it were American wheat and flour, it was the duty of the party claiming here to show that it was so; and, next, to show that it was returned in the same condition as it was when it went from this country. The act of 1799 referred the matter to the custom-house officers, the collector and the controller, and it was for them to be satisfied as to whether the requirements of that act were complied with, and they are the proper parties to ascertain these facts. The evidence of identity, and of a compliance with ’the regulations pointed out by the act, is sufficient; and the principal question is one of law, whether the sale of a portion of the goods changed their American character. Judge BETTS intimated his opinion that the act would not bear that construction. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, without retiring, of 84,915.63, including interest.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                         134,634
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,930
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    191,267
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               579,765
<PP&E>                                       7,907,937
<DEPRECIATION>                                 382,923
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,702,985
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,078,071
<BONDS>                                      1,612,559
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        378
<COMMON>                                        22,707
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,500,046
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,702,985
<SALES>                                        623,881
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               823,532
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,881,105
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,562,065
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,619,638)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,621,238)
<DISCONTINUED>                               (518,812)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 85,775
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,054,275)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.23)
        

</TABLE>
IA

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 4

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with

respect to the right to life.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 6, 1999

Mrs. EMERSON introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States with respect to the right to life.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid only

6 when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the

7 several States within seven years after the date of final

8 passage of this joint resolution:
2

•HJ 4 IH

1 ‘‘ARTICLE—

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. With respect to the right to life, the

3 word ‘person’ as used in this article and in the fifth and

4 fourteenth articles of amendment applies to all human

5 beings irrespective of age, health, function, or condition

6 of dependency, including their unborn offspring at every

7 state of their biological development.

8 ‘‘SECTION 2. No unborn person shall be deprived of

9 life by any person: Provided, however, That nothing in this

10 article shall prohibit a law permitting only those medical

11 procedures required to prevent the death of the mother

12 of an unborn person: Provided further, That nothing in

13 this article shall limit the liberty of a mother with respect

14 to the unborn offspring of the mother conceived as a result

15 of rape or incest.

16 ‘‘SECTION 3. The Congress and the several States

17 shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate leg18 islation.’’.

Æ
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 101

JOINT RESOLUTION

Recognizing the 225th birthday of the United

States Army.

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 101

JOINT RESOLUTION

Recognizing the 225th birthday of the United States Army.

Whereas on June 14, 1775, the Second Continental Congress, representing the citizens of 13 American colonies,

authorized the establishment of the Continental Army;

Whereas the collective expression of the pursuit of personal

freedom that caused the authorization and organization
2

•HJ 101 EH

of the United States Army led to the adoption of the

Declaration of Independence and the codification of the

new Nation’s basic principles and values in the Constitution;

Whereas for the past 225 years, the Army’s central mission

has been to fight and win the Nation’s wars;

Whereas whatever the mission, the Nation turns to its Army

for decisive victory;

Whereas the 172 battle streamers carried on the Army flag

are testament to the valor, commitment, and sacrifice of

the brave soldiers who have served the Nation in the

Army;

Whereas Valley Forge, New Orleans, Mexico City, Gettysburg, Verdun, Bataan, Normandy, Pusan, the Ia Drang

Valley, Grenada, Panama, and Kuwait are but a few of

the places where soldiers of the United States Army have

won extraordinary distinction and respect for the Nation

and its Army;

Whereas the motto of ‘‘Duty, Honor, Country’’ is the creed

by which the American soldier lives and serves;

Whereas the United States Army today is the world’s most

capable and respected ground force;

Whereas future Army forces are being prepared to conduct

quick, decisive, highly sophisticated operations anywhere,

anytime; and

Whereas no matter what the cause, location, or magnitude of

future conflicts, the Nation can rely on its Army to

produce well-trained, well-led, and highly motivated soldiers to carry out the missions entrusted to them: Now,

therefore, be it
3

•HJ 101 EH

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That Congress, recognizing the historic significance of the

4 225th anniversary of the United States Army—

5 (1) expresses the appreciation of the people of

6 the United States to the Army and the soldiers who

7 have served in it for 225 years of dedicated service;

8 (2) honors the valor, commitment, and sacrifice

9 that American soldiers have displayed throughout

10 the history of the Army; and

11 (3) calls upon the President to issue a

12 proclamation—

13 (A) recognizing the 225th birthday of the

14 United States Army and the dedicated service

15 of the soldiers who have served in the Army;

16 and

17 (B) calling upon the people of the United

18 States to observe that anniversary with appro19 priate ceremonies and activities.

Passed the House of Representatives June 13, 2000.

Attest:

Clerk.
**EXHIBIT
      32**





Certification
      of Principal Executive and Financial Officer


Pursuant
      to


Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)




In
      connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December
      31,
      2005 (the “Report”) of Highbury Financial Inc. (the “Registrant”), as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, the undersigned
      hereby certify that, to the best of the undersigneds’ knowledge:




(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 results of operations of the Registrant for the
      period certified.




Date:
                April 10, 2006
            
            By:
            
            /s/
                Richard S. Foote**Richard
                S. Foote****President
                and Chief Executive Officer****(Principal
                Executive Officer)**By:
            
            /s/
                R. Bradley Forth**R.
                Bradley Forth****Executive
                Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
                Secretary****(Principal
                Financial Officer)**
IIA

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 116

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 26 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22), 2000

Received

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year

2001, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That Public Law 106–275, is further amended by striking
2

HJ 116 RDS

1 the date specified in section 106(c) and inserting ‘‘October

2 27, 2000’’.

Passed the House of Representatives October 26,

2000.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
# L_2022115DE.01023001.xml

| 13.4.2022 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 115/230 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2022

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 115/230

---

Berichtigung der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) 2022/246 der Kommission vom 13. Dezember 2021 zur Änderung der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) 2017/39 hinsichtlich der Beihilfeanträge, der Zahlung der Beihilfen und der Vor-Ort-Kontrollen

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 41 vom 22. Februar 2022
  )

Seite 9, Artikel 1 Nummer 1 zur Änderung von Artikel 4 Absatz 6 Unterabsatz 1 der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) 2017/39, Buchstabe b:

Anstatt:

| „b) | sofern der Mitgliedstaat die Verwendung von standardisierten Einheitskosten, Pauschalfinanzierungen und/oder Pauschalbeträgen zulässt, ein Nachweis, dass die Mengen zum Zwecke des Schulprogramms abgegeben und/oder verteilt und bezahlt wurden.‘“ |
| --- | --- |

„b)

sofern der Mitgliedstaat die Verwendung von standardisierten Einheitskosten, Pauschalfinanzierungen und/oder Pauschalbeträgen zulässt, ein Nachweis, dass die Mengen zum Zwecke des Schulprogramms abgegeben und/oder verteilt und bezahlt wurden.‘“

muss es heißen:

| „b) | sofern der Mitgliedstaat die Verwendung von standardisierten Einheitskosten, Pauschalfinanzierungen und/oder Pauschalbeträgen zulässt, ein Nachweis, dass die Mengen zum Zwecke des Schulprogramms abgegeben und/oder verteilt wurden.‘“ |
| --- | --- |

„b)

sofern der Mitgliedstaat die Verwendung von standardisierten Einheitskosten, Pauschalfinanzierungen und/oder Pauschalbeträgen zulässt, ein Nachweis, dass die Mengen zum Zwecke des Schulprogramms abgegeben und/oder verteilt wurden.‘“

Seite 9, Artikel 1 Nummer 2 Buchstabe a zur Änderung von Artikel 5 Absatz 1 Buchstabe b der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) 2017/39:

Anstatt:

| „‚b) | sofern der Mitgliedstaat die Verwendung von standardisierten Einheitskosten, Pauschalfinanzierungen und/oder Pauschalbeträgen zulässt, ein Nachweis, dass die Mengen zum Zwecke des Schulprogramms abgegeben und/oder verteilt und bezahlt wurden.‘“ |
| --- | --- |

„‚b)

sofern der Mitgliedstaat die Verwendung von standardisierten Einheitskosten, Pauschalfinanzierungen und/oder Pauschalbeträgen zulässt, ein Nachweis, dass die Mengen zum Zwecke des Schulprogramms abgegeben und/oder verteilt und bezahlt wurden.‘“

muss es heißen:

| „‚b) | sofern der Mitgliedstaat die Verwendung von standardisierten Einheitskosten, Pauschalfinanzierungen und/oder Pauschalbeträgen zulässt, ein Nachweis, dass die Mengen zum Zwecke des Schulprogramms abgegeben und/oder verteilt wurden.‘“ |
| --- | --- |

„‚b)

sofern der Mitgliedstaat die Verwendung von standardisierten Einheitskosten, Pauschalfinanzierungen und/oder Pauschalbeträgen zulässt, ein Nachweis, dass die Mengen zum Zwecke des Schulprogramms abgegeben und/oder verteilt wurden.‘“

---
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 114 Received in Senate (RDS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 114

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            October 19 (legislative day, September 22), 2000

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law 106-275 is 
further amended by striking ``October 20, 2000'' in section 106(c) and 
inserting in lieu
thereof ``October 25, 2000''. Notwithstanding section 106 of Public Law 
106-275, funds shall be available and obligations for mandatory 
payments due on or about November 1, 2000, may continue to be made.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 19, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
**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 SRKP 4, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB
      for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony C.
      Pintsopoulos, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      ss. 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) 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.





/s/
                Anthony C.
                PintsopoulosAnthony
              C.
              PintsopoulosPrincipal
              Financial
              OfficerMarch
                3, 2006
**EXHIBIT      32.2**

| 1.   | The              Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all              material respects, the financial condition and results of operations              of              the Company. |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: March 26, 2007 |                                                 /s/ Asher                Zwebner                                 |
|-----------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  | Asher                Zwebner, Chief Financial Officer (Principal                Financial Officer)                                                                                                                                                                               |
|                  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |

----
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60296

Summary Calendar

ANDRES ANGEL GUILLEN-SILVERIO,

Petitioner

v.

LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A205 164 459

Before BARKSDALE, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Andres Angel Guillen-Silverio, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his appeal 

from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for withholding of 

removal, and for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). (He 

conceded removability.) 

 

* 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

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 5, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60296 Document: 00513451823 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2016
No. 15-60296

2

Guillen challenges the BIA’s determination he was not entitled to 

withholding of removal because he was not a member of a cognizable particular 

social group. He does not renew his contention he was entitled to withholding 

of removal because he faces persecution in Mexico based on his political beliefs, 

nor does he contest the BIA’s determination he was not entitled to relief under 

the CAT; therefore, those claims are abandoned. See, e.g., Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 

324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).

The BIA agreed with the IJ’s conclusion that Guillen is not eligible for 

withholding of removal because he failed to show membership in a cognizable 

particular social group; accordingly, the decisions of both the BIA and IJ are 

reviewable for substantial evidence. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th 

Cir. 2002). In that regard, his burden is to demonstrate the evidence compels 

a conclusion contrary to that reached by the BIA and IJ. E.g., Eduard v. 

Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 186 (5th Cir. 2004). 

Guillen applied for withholding of removal based on his membership in 

the particular social group identified as “Mexican deportees who have lived 

many years in the United States, vulnerable to extortion, and resented by 

organized criminals now operating in Mexico”. He contends his extended 

residency in the United States has instilled particular traits that will make 

him readily recognizable and vulnerable to abuse by criminals, and he is 

unable to relocate. This is insufficient to show the BIA erred in upholding the 

IJ’s determination that Guillen’s proffered group lacks the requisite social 

distinction and particularity. See Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 

518–19 (5th Cir. 2012). Guillen points to no evidence in the record which 

compels a contrary conclusion; accordingly, he has not met his burden of proof. 

See Eduard, 379 F.3d at 186.

DENIED.

 Case: 15-60296 Document: 00513451823 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/05/2016