alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<Page>

                                                                   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

   The undersigned, Eleanor L. Thomas, President (chief executive officer) of
the managing owner, Prudential Securities Futures Management Inc. (the 'Managing
Owner'), of World Monitor Trust--Series A ('Series A'), hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

   (1) Series A's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September
       26, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
       date hereof (the 'Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
       material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
       Series A.

/s/ Eleanor L. Thomas
---------------------------------------------------------
Eleanor L. Thomas
President (chief executive officer) of the Managing Owner
November 10, 2003
The Court will dismiss this petition for a writ of habeas corpus as time-barred. The statute of limitations

1

for a habeas petition is one (1) year. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The statute begins to run on the date on which the

judgment became final. Id. Petitioner’s conviction became final on April 16, 1998, thirty (30) days after the denial

of his motion for a new trial. As a result, Petitioner’s AEDPA statute began running on April 16, 1998, and expired

on April 15, 1999. Petitioner, did not file this petition until May 5, 2005 - six years later. Consequently, petitioner

was time-barred. 

However, Petitioner argues that the statute should toll because of malfeasance by his attorney. The Court

disagrees. Statutory tolling does not apply because Petitioner did not file his PCRA petition until after the AEDPA

statute had run. The statute of limitations for a habeas petition will toll by statue if “a properly filed application for

State post-conviction...is pending” 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(2). Moreover, equitable tolling will not save the petition

because in non-capital cases, attorney error does constitute the “extraordinary circumstances” required for equitable

tolling. See e.g. Johnson v. Hendricks, 314 F.3d 159, 163 (3d Cir. 2002) (holding that a petitioner whose attorney

had given him erroneous advice as to when a habeas petition needed to be filed, was not entitled to equitable tolling

of the AEDPA statute of limitations because the petitioner did not show that he was prevented him from complying

with the statute of limitations).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

:

BRANDON CHRISTOPHER KEY, :

Petitioner, :

: CIVIL ACTION

v. :

: NO. 05-2301

GERALD ROZUM, et al., :

Respondents. :

:

O R D E R

AND NOW, on this 19th day of December, 2005, upon careful and independent

consideration of the pleadings and record herein, and after review of the Report and

Recommendation of Chief United States Magistrate Judge M. Faith Angell (Doc. 13) and

Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 14), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED,

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED AND DISMISSED AS TIME

BARRED under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1),1

3. Petitioner’s Renewed Motions for Additional Materials and Leave to Amend Habeas

Petition (Docs. 10 & 11) are DENIED, 

Case 2:05-cv-02301-PBT Document 15 Filed 12/20/05 Page 1 of 2
4. A certificate of appealability is NOT GRANTED,

5. The Clerk of the Court shall mark this case as CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

/S/ Petrese B. Tucker

_____________________________

Hon. Petrese B. Tucker, U.S.D.J.

Case 2:05-cv-02301-PBT Document 15 Filed 12/20/05 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BETTY and ROBERT CONLEY :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4296

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04296-CMR Document 7 Filed 09/20/2002 Page 1 of 1
No. 49582.

#### Protest 107976-K of R. Neumann & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the hides are similar to those involved in *Rice*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 118, C. D. 807). The claim was therefore sustained.
No. 59465.

protest 252908-K (New York).

#### Bryant & Heffernan, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Although compliance with the regulations is not a condition precedent in shortage cases *(United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.,*34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351), it was held that plaintiff is required to present evidence that a shortage existed at the time of unloading *(United States*v. *Brown,*2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 189, T. D. 31943). Since the official papers .were not offered in evidence nor was any other evidence of shortage presented, the court was constrained to overrule the protest.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-15-00570-CV

In The Interest of K. N. M., a Child

On appeal from the

377th District Court of Victoria County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 08-967,746-d

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

June 30, 2016
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 The Art  Boutique,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending  December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report").  I,
Ronald Lui, CEO of the company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 USC Section  1350,  as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge and belief.

        (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/ Ronald Lui
                                         --------------------------------
                                         Ronald Lui, CEO

Dated:  April 15, 2004
<Page>

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 this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Integrated
Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended December 31,
2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (ii) 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 period indicated

      This Certificate has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


                                        INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC.

Dated: February 14, 2008                By:  /s/ Steven R. Blake
                                           ------------------------------
                                           Steven R. Blake
                                           Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1165 Referred in House (RFH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1165

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 7, 2017

             Referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the medical center of the Department of Veterans Affairs 
  in Huntington, West Virginia, as the Hershel ``Woody'' Williams VA 
                            Medical Center.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF HERSHEL ``WOODY'' WILLIAMS VA MEDICAL CENTER 
              IN HUNTINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA.

    (a) Designation.--The medical center of the Department of Veterans 
Affairs in Huntington, West Virginia, shall after the date of the 
enactment of this Act be known and designated as the ``Hershel `Woody' 
Williams VA Medical Center''.
    (b) Reference.--Any reference in any law, regulation, map, 
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the medical 
center referred to in subsection (a) shall be considered to be a 
reference to the Hershel ``Woody'' Williams VA Medical Center.

            Passed the Senate September 7, 2017.

            Attest:

                                                JULIE E. ADAMS,

                                                             Secretary.
```
# C_2017053EN.01004701.xml

| 20.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/47

---

Order of the General Court of 21 December 2016 — fleur ami v EUIPO — 8 seasons design (Lamps)

(Case T-67/16) (1)

1

(2017/C 053/57)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.

1

---
Before the First Division,

February 13, 1946

No. 50885.

#### Protest 97909-K of S. Godfrey Co., Inc. (Boston).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise are the same in all material respects, as those passed upon in Abstract 50611, which held discarded paper-mill felts, unfit for further use in the manufacture of paper and having no commercial value except for the recovery of their component wool fibers by processing to a fibrous condition known as wool shoddy, to be classifiable as wool rags. In accordance therewith the claim at 9 cents per pound under paragraph 1105, as amended, was sustained.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-40365

Conference Calendar

 

VICTOR MICHAEL MACIAS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

N. L. CONNER, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:01-CV-51

--------------------

October 29, 2002

Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Victor Michael Macias, federal prisoner # 63420-080, appeals

the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition,

asserting that he is actually innocent of the crime to which he

pleaded guilty and that the indictment was invalid. As the

district court determined, because Macias’ petition challenges

his conviction and sentence, it is really a 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion. See Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000);

Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877-78 (5th Cir. 2000). 
No. 02-40365

-2-

Although Macias could proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 if he

demonstrated that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief was inadequate or

ineffective, Macias has made no such showing. He does not argue

that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inadequate in his appellate brief, and

he has therefore abandoned the argument. See Yohey v. Collins,

985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). For the first time in his

reply brief, Macias conclusionally argues that 28 U.S.C. § 2255

is ineffective, but this court will not consider arguments raised

for the first time in a reply brief. See United States v.

Prince, 868 F.2d 1379, 1386 (5th Cir. 1989). Even if the court

were to consider the argument, Macias offers no reason why 28

U.S.C. § 2255 relief is inadequate in his case and has thus

failed to make the required showing. 

Macias has not demonstrated any error in the district

court’s judgment. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
# C_2019044EN.01002602.xml

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés v Parliament

(Case T-829/16) (1)

((Law governing the institutions - European Parliament - Decision declaring ineligible certain expenditure of a political party for the purposes of a grant for the 2015 financial year - Right to good administration - Legal certainty - Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 - Prohibition on the indirect financing of a national political party))

(2019/C 44/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Varaut, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: C. Burgos and S. Alves, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 12 September 2016 declaring certain expenditure ineligible for the purposes of a grant for the 2015 financial year.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.

---
^m^m>mmm«^^m^¥^m^^^»^m^mm. Order issued March 11, 1998

In The 

### ©surfofAppeals 

### mtttj Btstrtrt at Q^xas at lallas No. 05-96-00631-CV PRESTON OAKS CROSSING CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant PRESTON OAKS CROSSING JOINT VENTURE,, Appellee ORDER 

### Appellees Preston Oaks Crossing Joint Venture's, Dondi Residential Properties, Inc.'s, Dondi Development Corporation's and Dondi Group, Inc.'s December 29, 1997 motion forleave to file a letter briefis GRANTED and the letter brief isconsidered filed as of that date. ED KINKEADE JUSTICE
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 37-7 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 1 of 8
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 37-7 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 2 of 8
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 37-7 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 3 of 8
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 37-7 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 4 of 8
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 37-7 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 5 of 8
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 37-7 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 6 of 8
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 37-7 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 7 of 8
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 37-7 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 8 of 8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

STACEY STRAUSS : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

JOSEPH WALSH : NO. 02-4383

 

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of December, 2002, as the

factual allegations and claims asserted against defendant Walsh

in the above action are identical to those set forth as to

defendant Walsh in the case of Stacey Strauss v. Joseph Walsh,

Frank Barkley, City of Philadelphia and Philadelphia Police

Department at Civil Action No. 01-3625, except that plaintiff

alleges in the above action that defendant Walsh acted outside

the scope of his employment with the City of Philadelphia while

alleging alternatively in the earlier action that he both acted

within and outside the scope of his employment; as discovery has

been completed and summary judgment motions are pending in the

earlier action; as the resolution of any issue or claim in that

case would have preclusive effect in the above case and vice

versa; and, as it would be pointless and inappropriate not to

resolve the two cases in tandem, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

42(a), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above action is consolidated

for disposition with Stacey Strauss v. Joseph Walsh, et al. at

Civil Action No. 01-3625.

BY THE COURT:

 

JAY C. WALDMAN, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04383-JW Document 3 Filed 12/09/02 Page 1 of 1
(Reap. Dec. 10970)

#### D & M Lumber Products Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 725063.

(Decided May 4, 1965)

*Sharp <& Bogan*for the plaintiff.

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

Rao, Judge:

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

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the 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, pub-*640listed in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, et seq,.).

> 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.
Before the Third Division,

October 15, 1947

No. 51955.

#### Melba B. Rodriguez *v.*United States,

petition 6468-R (Laredo).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

At the trial the customs broker testified that prior to making entry she had asked the importer whether he knew of any prices different from those in the invoice; that he said he did not and that he had inquired at several places in Reynosa and the price was the same; that she filed a request for information with the acting appraiser and made entry in accordance with the values given her; and that at the time of entry she had no knowledge of any values other than those given her by the importer and the customs officials. On the record presented the court found that the petitioner acted without intent to misrepresent the facts or to defraud the revenue of the United States or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the goods. The petition was therefore granted.
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: January 26, 2017 522733 

________________________________

In the Matter of EDWIN

RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner,

v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

CHRISTOPHER MILLER, as

Superintendent of Great 

Meadow Correctional 

Facility, 

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: November 29, 2016

Before: McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Egan Jr., Rose and Devine, JJ.

__________

Edwin Rodriguez, Comstock, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J.

Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this

Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Washington

County) to review a determination of respondent finding

petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

While a correction officer was directing inmates to return

to their cells, he advised them that no food was to leave the

feed-up area. When petitioner indicated that he had not yet

eaten, the officer informed petitioner to return to his cell,

stating that petitioner could eat with his company. The officer

frisked petitioner prior to leaving the area, at which time a

piece of baked chicken was discovered in a chip bag in

petitioner's back pocket. As a result, petitioner was charged in
-2- 522733 

a misbehavior report with refusing a direct order, stealing state

property and smuggling. Following a tier II disciplinary

hearing, petitioner was found guilty of these charges, and the

determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal. This CPLR

article 78 proceeding ensued.

Respondent concedes and, upon reviewing the record, we

agree that the portion of the determination finding petitioner

guilty of refusing a direct order and stealing state property is

not supported by substantial evidence and, as such, must be

annulled (see Matter of Smith v Venettozzi, 142 AD3d 1201, 1202

[2016]; Matter of Belot v Selsky, 56 AD3d 911, 912 [2008]). As

to the balance of the determination finding petitioner guilty of

smuggling, we find that "the hearing transcript is replete with

inaudible gaps that preclude our meaningful review" of this

particular charge (Matter of Caldwell v Annucci, 140 AD3d 1248,

1248 [2016]). Although the determination now must be annulled in

its entirety, we are not persuaded that petitioner was denied due

process (see Matter of Hamlett v Kelley, 133 AD3d 992, 992-993

[2015]); therefore, remittal for a new hearing as to the

smuggling violation, rather than expungement, is the appropriate

remedy (see Matter of Caldwell v Annucci, 140 AD3d at 1248-1249;

Matter of Nance v Annucci, 132 AD3d 1198, 1198 [2015]).

McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Egan Jr., Rose and Devine, JJ.,

concur.

ADJUDGED that the determination is annulled, without costs,

and matter remitted to respondent for further proceedings not

inconsistent with this Court's decision.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court