alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32 - CEO AND CFO CERTIFICATION

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 OBN Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the
undersigned, in the capacities 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 to his 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.



Dated:  May 13, 2005                   By: /s/ ROGER NEAL SMITH
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Roger Neal Smith
                                           Chief Executive Officer



Dated:  May 13, 2005                   By: /s/ LARRY TAYLOR
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Larry Taylor
                                           Chief Financial Officer

                                    Page 28
#### George T. Hall, *Respondent, v.*The Ogdensburgh and Lake Champlain Railroad Company, *Appellant.*

— Judgment reversed, new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by Board-man, J.
<PAGE>   1
                                 Exhibit 10.45

List of Vice Presidents who have executed an Officer Severance Agreement:

Kevin G. Aandahl                         VP, Corporate and Public Affairs
Morris L. Berger                         VP, Human Resources
Julia Bietsch                            VP, Provider Affairs
Karen Brobeck                            VP, Client Services
Mary Cronin Doyle                        VP, Commercial Product Management and
                                                Policy Administration
Ron Ekstrand                             VP, Strategy
Roger R. Fischer                         VP, Information Services
Larry Glascott                           VP, Controller
Ruth Meyer Hollenback                    VP, Network Management
Gary Maienschein                         VP, Government Affairs
Thomas P. Ogden                          VP, Information Services
Michael F. Patton                        VP, Marketing
Jane I. Potter                           VP, Medical Delivery Systems
Randy D. Ressel                          VP, Outstate Sales
Thomas Stoiber                           VP, Actuarial/Underwriter Services
Dennis J. Sullivan                       VP, Operations/Services
Gary Whitworth                           VP, BCBSMO Operations
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v FRANK LONG, Jr., Private E-1, U. S. Army, Appellant

8 USCMA 93, 23 CMR 317

No. 9978

Decided June 28, 1957

*Major Frank C. Stetson*was on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*94
      *Lieutenant Colonel Thomas J. Newton*was on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

GEORGE W. LatimeR, Judge:

Charged with desertion and failure to obey a lawful order, in contravention of Articles 85 and 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 885 and 892, respectively, the accused soldier entered a plea of guilty. A general court-martial convicted him as charged, and sentenced him to dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, and confinement for two and one-half years. The convening authority mitigated the period of confinement to eighteen months, but otherwise approved the findings and sentence, and the board of réview affirmed. Accused sought review here and we granted his petition on the issue of whether the travel order by the Chief Warrant Officer named in the specification is a lawful order.

This case arose in the same command, and involves a similar order by the same warrant officer that was considered by us in United States v Matthews, 8 US CMA 94, 23 CMR 318, decided this date. As we said in that instance, and so far as this record is concerned, the warrant officer was without authority to issue such a travel order. Accordingly, the conviction for failure to obey a lawful order is set aside and that charge and specification are dismissed. The record is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for resubmission to the board of review for reassessment of sentence on the remaining conviction of desertion.

Judge FERGUSON concurs.

Quinn, Chief Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent for the reasons set out in my opinion in United States v Matthews, decided this date.
(Reap. Dec. 8554)

#### The J. L. Hudson Company *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 13895; 1061; 1116.

*540(Decided February 28, 1956)

*Tompkins & Tompkins*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Olivee, Chief Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between counsel for the Plaintiff, and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, Defendant, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered by the reappraisement appeals listed in the attached Schedule A, which Schedule A is made a part of this stipulation, consists of illuminating glassware imported from Czechoslovakia which is similar in all material respects to the merchandise that was the subject of decision in the case of *United States*v. *Nelson Bead Co.,*C. A. D. 590, and that the issues involved in said reappraisement appeals set forth in the attached Schedule A are similar in all material respects to the issues in said case.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the record in the case of *United States*v. *Nelson Bead Co.,*C. A. D. 590 be incorporated in and made a part of the record in the cases set forth in the attached Schedule A.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the appraised values of th (merchandise covered by the reappraisement appeals in the attached Schedule A, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the Appraiser in similar cases, are equal to the market values or the prices at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, and that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

The reappraisement appeals listed in the attached Schedule A are submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 52671.

protest 49302-K (Cleveland).

#### The Dean & Kite Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on entry 885. The protest was sustained to this extent.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-40716

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Jermon Rodriguez Clark, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:94-CR-1-3 

______________________________

Before Dennis, Southwick, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jermon Rodriguez Clark, federal prisoner # 04709-078, appeals the 

denial of his motion for compassionate release, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), and the denial of his motion for reconsideration. 

We review the denial of a motion for compassionate release and the 

denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. United States v. 

Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020); United States v. Haj, 850 F. 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 8, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-40716 Document: 62-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/08/2024
No. 23-40716

App’x 904, 905 (5th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (unpublished). The district 

court’s orders denying Clark’s compassionate release motion and motion for 

reconsideration demonstrate that the court adequately considered his

arguments about the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and concluded that they did 

not weigh in favor of relief. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693 (explaining that a 

district court must provide “specific factual reasons” for its decision on a 

motion for compassionate release). Clark’s arguments regarding the 

§ 3553(a) factors amount to a disagreement with the court’s balancing of 

those factors; his disagreement does not warrant reversal. See id. at 694 

(holding that disagreement with the district court’s balancing of the § 3553(a) 

factors “is not a sufficient ground for reversal” (citing United States v. 

Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 342 (5th Cir. 2016))).

We need not consider Clark’s contention that the district court erred 

in finding that he failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons 

warranting relief because the district court did not abuse its discretion in its 

alternative ruling that relief was unwarranted under the applicable § 3553(a) 

factors.1 See, e.g., United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 

2022) (recognizing that “we have regularly affirmed the denial of a 

compassionate-release motion . . . where the district court’s weighing of the 

Section 3553(a) factors can independently support its judgment”).

The district court’s orders are AFFIRMED.

_____________________

1 The district court is free to reweigh those factors in connection with Clark’s 

pending 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion. See Motion to Reduce Sentence, United States v. 

Clark, No. 2:94-CR-1(03) (E.D. Tex. July 8, 2024), ECF No. 222.

Case: 23-40716 Document: 62-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/08/2024
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 58 (Tuesday, March 27, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 14273]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5522]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-353-000]


Stingray Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

March 21, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 15, 2007, Stingray Pipeline Company, 
L.L.C. (Stingray) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Third Revised Volume No. 1, Fourth Revised Sheet No. 300. Stingray 
states that the tariff sheet is being filed to resolve an issue that 
currently exists in its Tariff.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). 
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on 
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b1f7f4e3f2fedfddd8dfd4e2c4c1c1dec3c5f1d7d4c3d29fd6dec7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="490f0c1b0a06272520272c1a3c3939263b3d092f2c3b2a672e263f">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-5522 Filed 3-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeffrey Marshall, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 127]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.), rendered April 13, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was the "look out” for a robbery of a liquor store that resulted in the death of the owner of the liquor store and the serious injury of an employee. The defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree and acquitted of felony murder and felony assault. He was tried before a separate jury at a joint trial with a codefendant *(see, People v Cabeza,*221 AD2d 460 [decided herewith]).

The defendant argues that the verdict was repugnant. However, because an objection to the verdict was not raised before the jury was dismissed, this argument has not been preserved for appellate review *(see, People v Alfaro,*66 NY2d 985). In any event, the verdict was not repugnant. Neither of the crimes of which the defendant was acquitted, as they were charged to the jury, was conclusive with regard to a necessary element of the crime of which the defendant was convicted *(see, People v Loughlin,*76 NY2d 804; *People v Tucker,*55 NY2d 1).

Further, the defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his argument that the court improperly allowed the People to present rebuttal testimony concerning his alibi in the absence of notice pursuant to CPL 250.20 *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Beavers,*127 AD2d 138), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
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 on Form 10-Q of Aeolus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard P. Burgoon, Jr., Chief Executive Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as 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) 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/ RICHARD P. BURGOON, JR.Richard P. Burgoon, Jr.Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer)May 6, 2005
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eddie Flowers, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 13]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that Supreme Court erred in imposing a sentence greater than that agreed upon without allowing defendant to withdraw his plea. When defendant entered the plea, the court advised him that, if he failed to appear on the date scheduled for sentencing, the court would not be bound by its sentence promise and could impose an enhanced sentence. By failing to appear at the scheduled time, defendant forfeited the benefits of his original plea bargain and the court was free to impose an enhanced sentence *(see, People v Rumlin,*209 AD2d 1051, *lv denied*85 NY2d 866; *People v Gwynn,*201 AD2d 501, *lv denied*83 NY2d 911; *People v Gamble,*111 AD2d 869, 870). There is no merit to the contention of defendant that the court failed to make any inquiry before denying his request for a new court-assigned counsel *(see, People v Sides,*75 NY2d 822). The sentence imposed is less than the maximum, and we decline to exercise our power to modify it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see,*CPL 470.15 [6] [b]). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Affronti, J.—Attempted Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Close air support and theBattle for Khe Sanh**
 
Parts: 01| 02
 
SuDoc Number:D 214.14/3:K 52
Item Number:0383-C (online)
CGP systemNumber:000903742
 
October 7, 2019
No. 58633.

petition 7143-R (New York).

#### Chu Kao Shao *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

An examination of the papers disclosed that only one item, Sill, consisting of earthenware figures, *1}{*inches high, was appraised at a higher value than that at which it was entered. The figures were entered at 6 cents each, Hong Kong dollars, and -were appraised at 12 cents each, Hong Kong dollars. At the trial, a member of the importing firm testified that, prior to entry, the shipper of the merchandise “wrote a letter to me and he said six and a half cents, then I said too high. Then he wrote a letter to me giving the'pricelist, *479six cents”; that, prior to placing the order for the involved merchandise, he received a second pricelist; and that he did not remember whether he showed the pricelist to the customs officials prior to entry, since he was taken sick and had given all the papers to the customhouse broker. A member of the brokerage firm testified that he had received the invoice and bill of lading from the importer and that, prior to making entry, had submitted them to the customs examiner for value verification. Although neither witness specifically stated that the two pricelists, exhibit 1 and collective exhibit 2, respectively, were submitted to the appraiser, exhibit 3 contained the following statement: “I submit consular invoice No. 2316 dated 5/16/52 certified at Hong Kong covering merchandise now arrived, and of which entry is to be made at this port, together with all papers, documents, correspondence, and.other information not previously presented relative to the value of the merchandise.” In view of the foregoing, the court held that it was reasonable to assume that the two pi’icelists were submitted to the appraiser at the time the invoice and bill of lading were submitted. On the record presented, it was held that there was no intent to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
Exhibit 32.4



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 Quarterly Report of the Frontier Long/Short
Commodity Fund, a Series of Frontier Funds on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2019, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his 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 Frontier Long/Short Commodity Fund.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|/s/ Patrick J. Kane                                                                                                                                   | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Patrick J. Kane                                                                                                                                       | 
|Chairman, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer and Managing Member of Frontier Fund Management LLC, the Managing Owner of Frontier Funds | 



June 24, 2019
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Report of the Secretary ofAgriculture [electronic resource]**
 
1997 | 1998 | 1999
 
SuDoc Number:A 1.1:
Item Number:0006 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000504260
 
January 21, 2020