alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.11

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 Dynamic Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2009 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; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Dynamic Series.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                              
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                            
|Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Dynamic Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                                                                                              
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                                                               
|Brent Bales                                                                                                                                   
|Chief Financial Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Dynamic Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund              

Date: August 14, 2009
#### Jennie McKallor, *Plaintiff, v.*Cornelius A. Waldron and others, Defendants.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Bockes, J.
No. 47972.

#### Protests 941135-G, etc., of Schmid & Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the various small ornamental or decorative figures in question are not toys, and are similar in all material respects (except component material of chief value and that they are not manger sets) to the small figures the subject of *Joseph Schmidt, Inc.*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 188, C. D. 690). The protests claiming that they are not subject to countervailing duty under section 303 were sustained as to certain of the items.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DIANE MCCLELLAND,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 273 WAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 16th day of February, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
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, 2008 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Gary L. Whitlock, 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, 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.








/s/
      Gary L. WhitlockGary
      L. WhitlockPresident
      and Manager(Principal
      Executive Officer)March 31,
      2009
Washington Mutal

As of and for the 12 months ended  December 31, 1999,  Washington  Mutual,  Inc.
(the "Company") 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,
the Company had in effect a fidelity bond and errors and omissions policy in the
amounts of $60 million and $15 million, respectively.

(LOGO)
Steven Freimuth                                  David Imig
Executive Vice President                         Senior Vice President
Corporate Services Group                         Loan Servicing


February 25, 2000
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Beasley Broadcast Group, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies to such officers knowledge that:

(i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended December 31, 2008 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |  |  |                       |  |                                           |  | 
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------- |  | 
|Dated: March 27, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ George G. Beasley
|                      |  |  |  |                       |  | George G. Beasley Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof,
regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Coast Financial Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Justin D. Locke, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as added by § 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 as of and for the period covered
by the report.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 9, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Justin D. Locke    
|                     |  |     |  | Justin D. Locke,       
|                     |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### FRED JACKSON, JR., PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. VICTOR SCHELEGIN, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS

*Messrs. Marcus & Levy*and *Mr. John Selawslcy*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Qaffey, Webb & McDermott*for the respondents.

April 18, 1967.

Denied.
#### In the Matter of Maria Concalves, Appellant, v Richard I. Scheyer, as Chairman of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Islip, et al., Respondents.

[633 NYS2d 1004]

—Appeal by the petitioner from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Stark, J.), dated January 27, 1994.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated by Justice Stark at the Supreme Court. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8420 

Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the hiring and rehiring 

of additional career law enforcement officers for the fiscal year ending 

September 30, 2024, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 16, 2024 

Mr. CARBAJAL (for himself and Mr. BACON) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and in addition 

to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the hiring 

and rehiring of additional career law enforcement officers 

for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, and for 

other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Filling Public Safety 

5 Vacancies Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8420 IH

1 SEC. 2. APPROPRIATION. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—There is appropriated, out of 

3 amounts in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for 

4 the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, to remain 

5 available until expended, $162,000,000 for additional 

6 amounts for grants for the hiring and rehiring of addi7 tional career law enforcement officers under section 1701 

8 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 

9 Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10381). 

10 (b) BACKGROUND CHECKS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL

11 EVALUATIONS.—A law enforcement agency using amounts 

12 appropriated under subsection (a) to hire or rehire a law 

13 enforcement officer— 

14 (1) shall— 

15 (A) perform a background check on the 

16 law enforcement officer; and 

17 (B) ensure that the law enforcement offi18 cer undergoes a psychological evaluation; and 

19 (2) shall use amounts appropriated under sub20 section (a) or other funds of the law enforcement 

21 agency to cover the cost of carrying out the require22 ments under paragraph (1). 

23 SEC. 3. EMERGENCY DESIGNATION. 

24 The amounts provided by this Act are designated as 

25 an emergency requirement pursuant to section 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 8420 IH

1 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 

2 Deficit Control Act of 1985. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Harveen Delello, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 77273.)

[633 NYS2d 896]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The Court of Claims properly dismissed the claim in this action for malicious prosecution on the ground that plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the underlying criminal action terminated in her favor.

The elements of the tort of malicious prosecution are: (1) the commencement of a criminal action against plaintiff; (2) termination of the criminal action in favor of plaintiff; (3) the absence of probable cause for the criminal action; and (4) actual malice *(see, Colon v City of New York,*60 NY2d 78, 82; *Pandolfo v U.A. Cable Sys.,*171 AD2d 1013). The burden of proving that the criminal action terminated in plaintiffs favor is met " 'only when [the] * * * final disposition is such as to indicate * * * innocence’ ” *(Hollender v Trump Vil. Coop.,*58 NY2d 420, 425-426, quoting Restatement [Second] of Torts 2d § 660, comment *a).*

In the present case, the order of dismissal in the criminal action "leaves the question of guilt or innocence unanswered” *(Ryan v New York Tel. Co.,*62 NY2d 494, 504-505; *see, Witcher v Children’s Tel. Workshop,*187 AD2d 292, 294). Furthermore, plaintiffs amended notice of claim failed to allege in a nonconclusory fashion the basis for the dismissal of the criminal charges *(see, Witcher v Children’s Tel. Workshop, supra,*at 294). Lastly, from our review of the record, we conclude that dismissal of the complaint was authorized on the further ground that, as a matter of law, plaintiffs arrest was based upon probable cause *(see, Pandolfo v U.A. Cable Sys., supra,*at 1013; *see also, Broughton v State of New York,*37 NY2d 451, *cert denied sub nom. Schanbarger v Kellogg,*423 US 929). (Appeal from Judgment of Court of Claims, Margolis, Israel, J.— Malicious Prosecution.) Present—Lawton, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.
#### Gayle Wolfee, Respondent, v Robin Getman, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 329]

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Defendant and her then fiancé Craig Bush, retained plaintiff, a real estate agent, to sell defendant’s home located in the Town of Sardinia. On the evening of March 25, 1988, plaintiff went to defendant’s home for the purpose of showing it to a prospective buyer. While inside the home, the person who posed as the prospective buyer, Edward Beaufort-Cutner, shot and seriously injured plaintiff. Beaufort-Cutner was actually a private investigator retained by James Langendorfer, an acquaintance of Bush, to recover a portion of the money that Bush allegedly stole from Langendorfer. Bush also was shot by Beaufort-Cutner.

Beaufort-Cutner was eventually identified, arrested and convicted of two counts of attempted murder in the second degree and one count each of robbery in the first degree, burglary in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the first degree. The judgment of conviction was affirmed on appeal *(People v*Beaufort-Cutner, 190 AD2d 992, *Iv denied*81 NY2d 1011).

Plaintiff commenced this action alleging that defendant was negligent in failing to warn plaintiff of the risk of bodily harm, in failing to provide reasonably safe premises for plaintiff, and in allowing a dangerous condition to exist at defendant’s home. Defendant interposed her answer and, after completion of discovery, moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the complaint. Supreme Court denied the motion. We reverse.

Defendant, as the property owner, owed a duty of "reasonable care under the circumstances” to visitors upon the property *(Basso v Miller\*40 NY2d 233, 241). A property owner may be liable to a visitor for physical harm caused by the intentional acts of third persons but he is not an insurer of the visitor’s safety. Thus, "even where there is an extensive history of criminal conduct on the premises, the possessor cannot be held to a duty to take protective measures unless it is shown that he either knows or has reason to know from past experience 'that there is a likelihood of conduct on the part of third persons * * * which is likely to endanger the safety of the visitor’ (Restatement, Torts 2d § 344, Comment *fT (Nallan v HelmsleySpear, Inc., 50*NY2d 507, 519; *see also, Jacqueline S. v City of New York,*81 NY2d 288, *rearg denied*82 NY2d 749; *Golombek v Marine Midland Bank,*193 AD2d 1113, 1114).

Here, defendant established that she neither knew nor had reason to know that there was a likelihood that an unknown *970prospective buyer viewing defendant’s home would injure plaintiff. Even assuming, arguendo, that Bush was engaged in illegal drug activities from defendant’s home as alleged by plaintiff, defendant would not be liable to plaintiff. The shooting was not reasonably foreseeable and defendant was "not under a duty to perceive and guard against it” *(Golombek v Marine Midland Bank, supra,*at 1114). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.
#### MARIA A. PFEIFFER, RESPONDENT, v. JAMES E. CROSSLEY, APPELLANT.

Submitted December 9, 1918

Decided February 6, 1919.

On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 91 *N. J. L.*433.

For the respondent, *Louis J. Beers.*

For the appellant, *Abner Kalisch.*

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.
(Reap. Dec. 9573)

#### United States *v.*Nichimen Co., Inc.

Entry No. C.E. 800896.

(Decided December 23, 1959)

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe plaintiff.

*JohnD. Bode*for tbe defendant.

Rao, Judge:

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

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to tbe approval of tbe Court, that at tbe time of exportation of tbe cotton piece goods involved in tbe above appeal sucb or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in tbe principal markets of tbe country from which exported, in tbe usual wholesale quantities and in tbe ordinary course of trade, for exportation to tbe United States at tbe invoiced unit values, net packed, and that there was no higher foreign value for sucb or similar merchandise at the time of exportation of tbe involved merchandise.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this ease may be submitted for decision on tbe foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find 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 invoiced unit values, net packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
year of the issuance of the remittitur on direct appeal or the filing of the

judgment of conviction unless the petitioner can demonstrate cause for the delay and undue prejudice. 

### See State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Riker), 121 Nev. 225, 231, 112 P.3d 1070, 1074 (2005) ("Application of the statutory procedural default rules to post-conviction habeas petitions is mandatory.").

Here, the district court considered appellant's claims on the merits and did not refer to the fact that appellant's motion was filed more than 11 years after the filing of the judgment of conviction on December 6, 2001. As discussed in 

### Harris, the district court should have construed appellant's motion as a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus and then permitted appellant a reasonable time period to cure any defects with respect to the procedural requirements of NRS Chapter 34. 

### See 130 Nev. at , P.3d at (Adv. Op. No. 47, June 12, 2014, at 19). We reverse the decision of the district court and remand for the district court to construe the motion as a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus and to provide appellant an opportunity to cure any defects within a reasonable time period as set by the district court. Accordingly, we

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2
(0) 1947A 

### e

# Chute Cherry J. ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order. 1

J. Hardesty

J. Douglas

'In light of our decision to reverse and remand this matter for further proceedings before the district court, we decline to consider appellant's remaining arguments regarding the district court's decision to deny relief. This order constitutes our final disposition of this appeal. Any subsequent appeal shall be docketed as a new matter. In addition, appellant sent a letter to this court that was received on June 26, 2014. In that letter, appellant asks this court to sanction counsel for failing to file an opening brief with this court and to appoint alternate counsel Counsel had already filed an opening brief by the time this court received that letter and appellant was not given permission to file proper person documents with this court. 

### See NRAP 46(b). Therefore, we will take no action on appellant's requests.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 3
(0) 1947A

### cc: Chief Judge, Tenth Judicial District Hon. Robert E. Estes, Senior Judge The Law Office of Jacob N. Sommer Attorney General/Carson City Churchill County District Attorney/Fallon Churchill County Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 

### 4

(0) 1947A
EXHIBIT 32





Section 1350 Certifications







I, Andrew K. Walker, certify that this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Allied Bancshares, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 containing financial statements fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Allied Bancshares, Inc.







|/s/Andrew K. Walker
President and Chief Executive Officer
|---------------------------------------------------------





|Date: May 15, 2007
|------------------



I, Richard E. Bell, certify that this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Allied Bancshares, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 containing financial statements fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Allied Bancshares, Inc.





|/s/Richard E. Bell
Chief Accounting Officer and Chief Financial Officer
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date:  May 15, 2007
|-------------------









16
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer



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



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2004, (the Report) of UTEK Corporation (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Carole R. Wright, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, 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, as amended; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.



/S/    CAROLE R.
WRIGHTName:

Carole R. WrightDate:

February 24, 2005
No. 59081.

protest 172187-K (Boston).

#### Groma, Inc. *v.*United States,

*380Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of zinc alloy slabs similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 58106, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.