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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER,
          AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Martin P. Gilmore, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

      (i) The accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter
      ended September 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
      and

      (ii) The information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      LightFirst Inc.

                                      Date: November 15, 2004

                                      /s/ Martin P. Gilmore
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Martin P. Gilmore
                                      President, Chief Executive Officer, and
                                      Chief Financial Officer
                                      (Principal Executive Officer and Principal
                                      Financial Officer)
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN MONTUE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1697 FCD JFM P

vs.

MIKE KNOWLES, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an

application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In light of the complexity of

the legal issues involved, the court has determined that the interests of justice require

appointment of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see also Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d

952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Federal Defender is appointed to represent petitioner.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of the petition and this order

on David Porter, Assistant Federal Defender.

3. Petitioner’s counsel shall contact the Clerk’s Office to make arrangements for

copies of documents in the file.

Case 2:04-cv-01697-FCD-JFM Document 37 Filed 11/02/05 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

2

4. Within thirty days from the date of this order counsel for petitioner shall file

and serve an opposition to respondents’ August 9, 2005 motion to dismiss. Respondents’ reply,

if any, shall be filed and served not later than ten days thereafter. No extensions of time will be

granted. Upon the filing of the reply brief, the motion will be taken under submission on the

papers without oral argument. 

DATED: November 1, 2005. 

12

mont1697.110a

Case 2:04-cv-01697-FCD-JFM Document 37 Filed 11/02/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 59033.

protest 246646-K (New York).

#### American Express Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s classification, the protest was overruled.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Nonsky, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 201]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), rendered February 24, 1992, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On appeal, the defendant contends that the court improperly used a hypothetical in connection with its instructions on reasonable doubt relating to the witnesses’ identification of the defendant, thus constituting a direct rejection of his defense of mistaken identity, and thereby depriving him of a fair trial.

The challenge to the use of the hypothetical is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Scott,*208 AD2d 964; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245). In any event, the defendant’s argument lacks merit. The charge, viewed in its entirety, was unquestionably a correct statement of the law *(see, People v Coleman,*70 NY2d 817) and reserved the question of identification to the jury. Thus, there is no basis for concluding that the jury could not follow the court’s instructions *(see, People v Scott, supra; People v Griffith,*200 AD2d 760; *People v Ross,*184 AD2d 670).

The. defendant’s remaining contentions regarding the supplemental charges are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, do not warrant reversal. Ritter, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 of American Home Mortgage Investment
Corp. (the "Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Stephen A. Hozie, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best
of my knowledge, 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 Registrant.

August 9, 2006

                          /s/ Stephen A. Hozie
                          ----------------------------------------
                          Stephen A. Hozie
                          Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
SCALE 1:24,000

WEBSTER QUADRANGLE

1 0.5 0 1 MILE

1 0.5 0 1 KILOMETER

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Prepared in cooperation with the OPEN-FILE REPORT 2006-1260-I

Explanatory pamphlet accompanies map

Surficial Geologic Map of the Webster Quadrangle, Massachusetts

Compiled by Janet R. Stone

2013

Base from U.S. Geological Survey, 1969.

Map was scanned, processed, georeferenced,

rectified, and cropped by the Massachusetts

Geological Survey.

Map units were modified from Barosh (1973). Some postglacial

units were mapped using 2005 orthophoto images.

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

(SHEET 24 of 24)

(S

O

U

THB

RID

G

E)

(OXF

O

R

D)

(LEICESTER)

71°52'30"W

71°52'30"W

72°0'0"W

72°0'0"W

42°7'30"N

42°7'30"N

42°0'0"N

42°0'0"N

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

MASSACHUSETTS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

AND OFFICE OF GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION (MassGIS),

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIVISION

Stone, J.R., compiler, 2013, Surficial geologic map

of the Mount Grace-Ashburnham-Monson-Webster

24-quadrangle area in central Massachusetts:

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1260-I

Available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1260/I.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 03, 2021. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, May 03, 2021 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21I0186. LORI BELINDA HICKS et al. v. UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC. et al.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 21EV000143 21EV000092 21EV000106
10.2 GadberryRenewalAddendum




RENEWAL ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This Renewal Addendum No. 2 is made this 17th day of March, 2015, to the Employment Agreement between Jon M. Gadberry (the “Employee”) and Home Federal Bank, a South Dakota state chartered bank (the “Bank”), dated March 27, 2013 (the “Employment Agreement”).  The Board of Directors of the Bank and of HF Financial Corp., the parent company of the Bank, have authorized the Chairman of the Bank’s Board of Directors to execute this Renewal Addendum No. 2 on behalf of the Bank.  


WHEREAS, the term of Employment Agreement, as extended by Renewal Addendum No. 1 to Employment Agreement dated March 13, 2014, expires on June 30, 2015, unless renewed by mutual agreement of Employee and the Bank; and


WHEREAS, the Employment Agreement may be renewed for not less than one year by providing notice thereof no later than ninety (90) days prior to the end of the then existing term; and


WHEREAS, Employee and the Bank do mutually agree to renew the term of the Employment Agreement.


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of paragraph 1 of the Employment Agreement, the parties agree as follows:  


1.    The term of the Employment Agreement is hereby renewed and the Employment Agreement shall continue in effect through June 30, 2016.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Employee and the Bank have executed this Renewal Addendum No. 2 effective as of the day and year first above written.




EMPLOYEE    HOME FEDERAL BANK 
    
/s/ Jon M. Gadberry        /s/ Michael M. Vekich     
Jon M. Gadberry        By: Michael M. Vekich 
        Its: Chairman of the Board
# C_2007149EN.01000301.xml

| 3.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 149/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 149/3

---

UNIFORM APPLICATION OF THE COMBINED NOMENCLATURE (CN)

UNIFORM APPLICATION OF THE COMBINED NOMENCLATURE

(Classification of goods)

Publication of Explanatory Notes adopted under Article 10(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1)

1

(2007/C 149/05)

The Explanatory Notes to the combined nomenclature of the European Communities (2) shall be amended as follows:

2

Page 241

| 6111 | Babies' garments and clothing accessories, knitted or crocheted |
| --- | --- |

6111

Babies' garments and clothing accessories, knitted or crocheted

Babies' garments and clothing accessories, knitted or crocheted

The existing explanatory note shall be replaced by the following text:

‘See Note 6(a) to this chapter.

This heading covers a range of garments, which are intended for young children of a body height not exceeding 86 cm (in general a young child approx. 18 months old). They include: coats, cloaks, quilted wraps, pixie suits, dressing gowns, two-piece suits, rompers, trousers, over-trousers, knickerbockers, play-suits, waistcoats, wind-jackets, dresses, skirts, boleros, jackets, anoraks, capes, tunics, blouses, shirt-blouses, shorts, etc.

Some of these garments are layette articles. Among those layette articles are some the size of which cannot be defined, but they are classified in this heading, if they are clearly identifiable as garments meant for babies.

This heading therefore includes:

| 1. | christening robes and gowns; |
| --- | --- |

1.

christening robes and gowns;

| 2. | “bournous capes”: small sleeveless robes with hoods; |
| --- | --- |

2.

“bournous capes”: small sleeveless robes with hoods;

| 3. | pixie suits: garments with hoods and sleeves, forming both a coat and a bag (completely closed at the bottom); |
| --- | --- |

3.

pixie suits: garments with hoods and sleeves, forming both a coat and a bag (completely closed at the bottom);

| 4. | romper bags for babies, which may also be padded, with sleeves or armholes. An example is illustrated in the photograph hereafter: |
| --- | --- |

4.

romper bags for babies, which may also be padded, with sleeves or armholes. An example is illustrated in the photograph hereafter:

Image

---

(1)  OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 580/2007 (OJ L 138, 30.5.2007, p. 1).

1

(2)  OJ C 50, 28.2.2006, p. 1.

2

---
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Kirk Robinson, Appellant, v Sonny Schriver, as Superintendent of Wallkill Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 1001]

—In a habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated May 3, 1994, which denied the writ.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the petitioner’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf, People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Copertino, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.
March 7, 1963

Reap. Dec. 10464.

#### A. & A. Trading Corp. *v.*United States,

REHEARING MOTION GRANTED

Entered at Boston, Mass. (Not published.) Motion by plaintiff.
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 Quarterly Report of Kronos Worldwide,  Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period  ended March 31,  2004 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the Report),  I, Harold C. Simmons,
Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company,  and I,  Gregory M.  Swalwell,  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 results of operations of the Company.




/s/ Harold C. Simmons
----------------------
Harold C. Simmons
   Chief Executive Officer


/s/ Gregory M. Swalwell
------------------------
Gregory M. Swalwell
   Chief Financial Officer


May 5, 2004


Note: The certification  the registrant  furnishes in this exhibit is not deemed
"filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,  as
amended,  or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that Section.  Registration
Statements or other documents filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
shall not incorporate this exhibit by reference,  except as otherwise  expressly
stated in such filing.
* 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. 01-20081

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RICHARD OSA IYAMU, also known as Richard O. Iyamu, also known

as Kofi Ada Nathan,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CR-452-3

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

December 12, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Richard Osa Iyamu on

appeal has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as

required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Iyamu has

responded to counsel’s motion, contending that he did not waive

his right to appeal whether his sentence should have been imposed

to run consecutively to his state sentence; that the Government

breached the plea agreement; and that he received ineffective

assistance of counsel at the guilty plea and on appeal. Our

independent review of the brief, Iyamu’s response, and the record
No. 01-20081

-2-

discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH

CIR. R. 42.2.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4960 

To prohibit State excise taxes on firearms and ammunition manufacturers 

and dealers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 1, 2024 

Mr. RISCH (for himself, Mr. CRAMER, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. 

CRAPO, Mr. DAINES, Mrs. FISCHER, and Mrs. HYDE-SMITH) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Finance 

A BILL 

To prohibit State excise taxes on firearms and ammunition 

manufacturers and dealers. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Freedom from Unfair 

5 Gun Taxes Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON STATE EXCISE TAXES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—A State, and any political subdivi8 sion thereof, may not levy or collect an excise tax on the 

9 sale of a firearm, ammunition, or a part or component 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4960 IS

1 of a firearm or ammunition by a manufacturer or dealer 

2 that occurs in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce. 

3 (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in sub4 section (a) shall be construed to alter, modify, or otherwise 

5 affect the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (16 

6 U.S.C. 669 et seq.). 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 31.1
CERTIFICATIONS
I, Ronald B. Clark, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Jafra WorldwideHoldings (Lux) S.àr.l.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal controls over financial reporting.
Date August 13, 2004       /s/ RONALD B. CLARK      Ronald B. Clark   Chief Executive Officer  
64
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-11656

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:12-cr-00479-JDW-TBM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DAVID DWINELL,

a.k.a. David J. Dwinell,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(April 18, 2014)

Before HULL, MARCUS, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 13-11656 Date Filed: 04/18/2014 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Kenneth S. Siegel, appointed counsel for David Dwinell in this direct 

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation and filed a 

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Our 

independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the

merit of the appeal is correct. We agree with Siegel that Dwinell’s guilty plea was 

knowing and intelligent, see United States v. Ternus, 598 F.3d 1251, 1254 (11th 

Cir. 2010), and find his sentence procedurally reasonable, see Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). We also examined the issue, 

missing from Siegel’s brief, of whether the district court plainly erred by imposing 

a term of supervised release, and conclude it did not. See United States v. 

Rodriguez, 627 F.3d 1372, 1380 (11th Cir. 2010); United States v. Lejarde-Rada, 

319 F.3d 1288, 1291 (11th Cir. 2003). Because independent examination of the 

entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is 

GRANTED, and Dwinell’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-11656 Date Filed: 04/18/2014 Page: 2 of 2