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

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Form 10-K of Virginia Commerce Bancorp, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010, I, Peter A.
Converse, Chief Executive Officer of Virginia Commerce Bancorp, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

(1) such Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, 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 such Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Virginia Commerce Bancorp, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated.

|                     |  |  |  |                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                     |  | 
|Date: March 16, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/ Peter A. Converse  
|                     |  |  |  | Peter A. Converse      
|                     |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
PUBLIC LAW 107–356—DEC. 17, 2002 116 STAT. 3013

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3858:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107–509 (Comm. on Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):

June 24, considered and passed House.

Nov. 19, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 107–356

107th Congress

An Act

To modify the boundaries of the New River Gorge National River, West Virginia.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘New River Gorge Boundary

Act of 2002’’.

SEC. 2. NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL RIVER BOUNDARY MODIFICATIONS.

(a) BOUNDARY MODIFICATION.—Section 1101 of the National

Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 460m–15) is amended

by striking ‘‘NERI–80,028A, dated March 1996’’ and inserting

‘‘NERI 80,034, dated May 2001’’.

(b) LAND EXCHANGE.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior shall complete a fee simple land exchange in the vicinity of Beauty

Mountain, Fayette County, West Virginia, to acquire a tract

of land identified as NERI Tract Number 150–07 that lies

adjacent to the boundary of the New River Gorge National

River in exchange for a tract of land identified as NERI Tract

Number 150–08 located within such boundary.

(2) TREATMENT OF EXCHANGED LANDS.—Upon the completion of such land exchange—

(A) the land acquired by the United States in the

exchange shall be included in the boundaries, and administered as part, of the New River Gorge National River;

and

(B) the land conveyed by the United States in the

exchange shall be excluded from the boundaries, and shall

not be administered as part, of the New River Gorge

National River.

Approved December 17, 2002.

16 USC 460m–15

note.

16 USC 460m–15

note.

New River Gorge

Boundary Act of

2002.

Dec. 17, 2002

[H.R. 3858]
No. 61929.

#### Wasserstein Bros. *v.*United States,

protest 316057-K (New York).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
<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

                  In connection with the Annual Report of CenterPoint Energy
Transition Bond Company, LLC (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the Year ended
December 31, 2005 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, Gary L. Whitlock, President and Manager
(Principal Executive Officer), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 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, 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
Company.

Date:  March 29, 2006

                                                   /s/ Gary L. Whitlock
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Gary L. Whitlock
                                                   President and Manager
                                                   (Principal Executive Officer)
#### Michael Hantout et al., Appellants, v Vito LaMorte et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. (And Third-Party Actions.)

[635 NYS2d 476]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), entered April 1, 1994, which (1) denied their motion for partial summary judgment against the defendant Vito LaMorte on their causes of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1), § 241 (l)-(5), and § 241-a, (2) granted the cross motion of Nessel Electric Co. for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ Labor Law causes of action insofar as they are asserted against it, (3) granted the cross motion of the defendants Red Hook Deli, Inc., and Giacomo Minafra for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ Labor Law causes of action insofar as asserted against them, and (4) upon searching the record, granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant Vito LaMorte dismissing the plaintiffs’ causes of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1), § 241 (l)-(5), and § 241-a insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ Labor Law causes of action insofar as asserted against the defendants Giacomo Minafra, Red Hook Deli, Inc., and Nessel Electric Co. *(see, Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp.,*82 NY2d 876, 877; *Russin v Picciano & Sons,*54 NY2d 311; *Wendel v Pillsbury Corp.,*205 AD2d 527; *D’Amico v New York Racing Assn.,*203 AD2d 509). Additionally, the court properly dismissed the causes of action asserted against the defendant Vito LaMorte pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1), § 241 (l)-(5), and § 241-a. Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Thompson and Ritter, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Trevor Drinkwater, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Genius
Products, Inc.; and

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.



|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  |                                                      
|------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|                    |  |  | 
|Dated: May 18, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ TREVOR DRINKWATER
|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | Trevor Drinkwater                                    
|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
EXHIBIT 10.29


 


AMENDMENT TO LICENSE AGREEMENT


 


THIS AMENDMENT (“Amendment
No. 1”) is made as of 23 January 2015 to the License Agreement dated 19th September 2014 (the “License
Agreement”) between Plasma Technologies, LLC, (hereinafter referred to as “PLASMATECH”) a South Carolina
limited liability company with an address c/o Eugene J. Zurlo, 36 Prioleau Street, Unit N, Charleston, SC 29401 and PlasmaTech
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation having a place of business at 1325 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor,
New York, NY USA (‘LICENSEE”).


 


PLASMATECH and LICENSEE
are hereinafter referred to as a “Party” and collectively “Parties” to this Amendment
No. 1.


 


In consideration of the
mutual covenants, terms and conditions set forth below and for other good and valuable consideration which the Parties hereto hereby
acknowledge, the Parties agree as follows:


 


1.           As
of the date of this amendment, Section 3.1(a) is amended and restated as follows:


 


(a)          Effective
Date Payment. In consideration of the rights and licenses granted by PLASMATECH herein, LICENSEE shall deliver to PLASMATECH
a combination of cash and common shares in LICENSEE in the amount of five million dollars ($5,000,000.00). One million dollars
($1,000,000.00) will be paid in cash. The remaining four million dollars ($4,000,000.00) will be paid at the option of the LICENSEE
in cash and/or shares of common stock (such shares of common stock, for this purpose, being valued at the price to the public in
the offering, net of transaction expenses and underwriting fees) on January 15, 2017.


 


2.           Except
as expressly set forth in this Amendment No. 1, all terms of the License Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


 


3.           This Amendment No. 1 may be executed
in one or more counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original but all of which together will constitute one and the same
instrument. This Amendment No. 1, to the extent signed and delivered by means of a facsimile machine or by exchanging PDF signatures,
shall be treated in all manner and respects and for all purposes as an original agreement or instrument and shall be considered
to have the same binding legal effect as if it were the original signed version thereof delivered in person.


 


IN WITNESS whereof
the Parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 1 to be signed by their duly authorized officers.


 


	Signed for and on behalf of	 	Signed for and on behalf of
	Plasma Technologies LLC	 	PlasmaTech Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.
	 	 	 
	/s/ Eugene J. Zurlo	 	/s/ Steven H. Rouhandeh
	Name:	Eugene J. Zurlo	 	Name:	Steven H. Rouhandeh
	Title:	Manager	 	Title:	Chairman
#### GEORGE A. ESTLER, APPELLANT, v. DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA AND WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY, RESPONDENT.

Submitted December 9, 1918

Decided February 6, 1919.

On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 91 *N. J. L.*421.

For the appellant, *Elmer W. Romine.*

For the respondent, *Frederic B. Scott.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Parker in the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Swayze, Trenchard, Bergen, Minturn, Black, White, - Heppenheimer, Williams, Gardner, JJ. 10.

*For reversal*— None.
#### In re BERREE & WOLF.

(District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

February 28, 1911.)

No. 2,283.

Bankruptcy (§ 132*)- — 1Trustee—Removal—Varidity.

An order of the referee in bankruptcy, removing the trustee of a bankrupt, not approved by the judge possessing sole power to remove, is void, and the remainder of the order appointing a new trustee, and a subsequent order directing the original trustee to turn over the assets to the new trustee, are ineffectual.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bankruptcy, Dec. Dig. § 132.*]

Proceedings in bankruptcy against Berree & Wolf. Removal of Thomas A. McAvoy as trustee by the referee, and the appointment of a successor, adjudged void.

Charles B. Harding, for substituted trustee.

*

For other oases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

Thomas A. McAvoy was qualified as trustee of the bankrupts on August 8, 1905. On January 26, 1910, the referee removed him and appointed a new trustee. This action has never been passed upon or approved by either judge of this district, and as general order No. 13 provides that a trustee ‘‘shall be removable by the judge only” it follows that the order of January 26th was on its face coram non judice, and therefore void. As a necessary’ consequence the remainder of that order appointing a new trustee, and the subsequent order of March 15, 1910, directing Mc-Avoy to turn over to the new trustee the assets that came into his hands under the appointment of 1905, must also fall as having no legal foundation. These' two orders are therefore formally‘set aside; but, as the referee’s certificate sets forth sufficient reasons for an inquiry into the conduct of McAvoy as trustee, a rule is nqw granted upon him returnable March 13, 1911, at 10 a. m., before the District Court in room 310, to show cause why he should not be removed as trustee, at which time a hearing upon the rule will be had. If the trustee desires to file' an answer, he may do so on or before March 5th. Service of the rule to be made on or before March 4th.
Case No. 13,237.

#### SPERRY et al. v. ERIE RY. CO.

[6 Blatchf. 425.] *1*

Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

May 31, 1869.

Champerty — How Pleaded — Motion to Take prom Files.

An objection that a bill in equity was filed under an agreement made between the plaintiffs and certain other parties, which is void for champerty, ought to be raised formally, by answer, and not by a motion to take the bill from the files.

[This was a bill in equity by Elihu Sperry and Anna Sperry against the Erie Railway Company.] Motion by the defendants to take the bill of complaint in this suit from the files of the court, and to set aside the service of the subpoena therein, on the ground that the bill and the subpoena were an abuse of the process of the court, and a fraud thereon, and that the suit partook of the nature of maintenance.

William W. McFarland, for plaintiffs.

Clarence A. Seward, for defendants.

BLATCHFORD, District Judge.

The ground of this motion is, that the bill was filed under an agreement made between the plaintiffs and certain other parties, which is void for champerty. I do not think this is the proper mode of taking the objection. It ought to be raised formally, by answer, so that plenary proofs may be taken in regard to such an issue, and the right of review in regard to it be secured to both parties. If the motion were to be granted, the plaintiffs would be without remedy. The motion is denied.
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 99.2

                      [PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LETTERHEAD]

                        INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT

To the Board of Directors of
GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.

We have examined management's assertion about GreenPoint Mortgage Funding Inc.'s
("GPMF") compliance with the minimum servicing standards identified in the
Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for
Mortgage Bankers ("USAP") as of and for the year ended December 31, 1999
included in the accompanying management assertion.  Management is responsible
for GPMF's compliance with those minimum servicing standards.  Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the
entity's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about GPMF's compliance with the minimum
servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our examination provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal
determination on GPMF's compliance with the minimum servicing standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that GPMF complied with the
aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended December
31, 1999 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

March 29, 2000
Los Angeles, California
<PAGE>

                   [GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING LETTERHEAD]

                             MANAGEMENT ASSERTION


As of and for the period ended December 31, 1999, GreenPoint Mortgage Funding,
Inc. has complied in all material respects with the minimum servicing standards
set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single
                                                           --------------
Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers.  As of and for this same period,
----------------------------------------
GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. had in effect a fidelity bond and errors and
omissions policy in the amount of $50,000,000 and $20,000,000, respectively.

/s/ Dennis Tussey
-----------------------
Dennis Tussey
Senior Vice President
Loan Administration
March 28, 2000
(Reap. Dec. 8574)

#### Abels Wasserberg & Co., Inc. (Penson & Co.—Broker) *v.*United States

Entry No. 794726.

*566(Decided April 27, 1956)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiffs.

*George S. Leonard,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraiseruent has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise and the issues in the Appeal to Reappraisement enumerated above are the same in all material respects to the merchandise and the issues decided in the case of *United States*v. *Nelson Bead Co.,*C. A. D. 590, and that the record in said case be incorporated and made a part of the record herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the export value of the merchandise at the time of exportation to the United States covered by the Appeal to Reappraisement enumerated above at which time such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for export to the United States including costs of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expeness incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to the United States, is the Appraised value less 15%, and that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the case may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On tbe 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 value was the appraised value, less 15 per centum.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8558 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8558

  To give Presidential Proclamation 9645 the full force and effect of 
                                  law.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 2024

   Mr. Self introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To give Presidential Proclamation 9645 the full force and effect of 
                                  law.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Gaza Strip Travel Restriction Act''.

SEC. 2. PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION 9645.

    (a) In General.--Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, 
Presidential Proclamation 9645, dated September 24, 2017 (82 Fed. Reg. 
45161), shall have the full force and effect of law.
    (b) Gaza Strip.--For purposes of this Act, individuals residing in 
the Gaza Strip shall be treated in the same manner as nationals of 
countries identified under section 2 of Presidential Proclamation 9645, 
dated September 24, 2017 (82 Fed. Reg. 45161).
    (c) Definition.--In this Act, the term ``Gaza Strip'' means the 
area along the Mediterranean Sea just northeast of the Sinai Peninsula 
that was demarcated in the Egyptian-Israeli armistice agreement of 
February 24, 1949.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0016 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RILEY JOSEPH LANDWEHR,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including February 13, 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 6 2023

01/06/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0016
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION 

File Name: 18a0094n.06 

Case No. 17-1567 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

DENISE POLLINGTON, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA) INC.; 

KEVIN BAKER, 

 Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF 

MICHIGAN 

 BEFORE: BOGGS, BATCHELDER, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges. 

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Denise Pollington sued her former employer, G4S Secure 

Solutions, and former supervisor, Kevin Baker, for alleged violations of Michigan law. She 

brought her suit in Michigan state court. G4S removed the case to federal court, claiming 

diversity jurisdiction. One problem: The parties’ filings suggest that both Pollington and Baker 

are Michigan citizens. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996) (noting that the 

citizenship of each plaintiff must be diverse from the citizenship of each defendant to create 

diversity jurisdiction); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In its notice of removal, G4S claimed that the 

district court should “disregard” Baker’s citizenship because Pollington failed to properly serve 

him, and in any event, that his presence in the suit would amount to fraudulent joinder. Instead 
Case No. 17-1567 

Pollington v. G4S Secure Solutions 

- 2 - 

of addressing these arguments and their effect on its jurisdiction, the district court allowed the 

litigation to proceed and ultimately granted both defendants summary judgment. 

The district court should not have proceeded to summary judgment until it resolved these 

lingering questions about its jurisdiction. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 

583 (1999). Jurisdiction must be established as a threshold matter—“inflexibl[y] and without 

exception.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94–95 (1998). So anytime a 

defendant removes to federal court, it must show that it has the right to be there. See Eastman v. 

Marine Mech. Corp., 438 F.3d 544, 549 (6th Cir. 2006). And it cannot do so merely by pointing 

to the other party’s consent or waiver. See Ins. Corp. of Ir. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de 

Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982). As such, even in the absence of an objection by Pollington, 

the district court was obligated to consider its jurisdiction sua sponte, at which point it could 

have done one of two things. Had it determined that Baker was improperly served or 

fraudulently joined, it should have dismissed him from the suit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); 

Probus v. Charter Commc’ns, LLC, 234 F. App’x 404, 407 (6th Cir. 2007). Alternatively, had it 

found that Baker was a proper party to the suit, it should have remanded the case to state court. 

See Saginaw Hous. Comm’n v. Bannum, Inc., 576 F.3d 620, 624 (6th Cir. 2009). It should not, 

however, have skipped over these jurisdictional issues and ruled on the merits. 

Accordingly, we VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND the case for 

a determination of whether diversity jurisdiction exists.