alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32





SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS





This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1934, as amended.





The undersigned, who are the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of Business Development Corporation of America (the “Company”), each hereby certify as follows:





To the best of their knowledge, the annual report of Form 10-K of the Company, which accompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all information contained in this annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated this 16 th day of March 2017





/s/Richard J. ByrneRichard J. ByrneChief Executive Officer, President, and Chairman of the Board of Directors(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Corinne D. PankovcinCorinne D. PankovcinChief Financial Officer and Treasurer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
No. 47454.

#### Protests 79814-K, etc., of Strauss-Eckardt Co., Inc., et al. (Baltimore, etc.).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6653

PATRICIA ANN ALDRIDGE, 

 Petitioner – Appellant, 

 v. 

DAVID BALLARD, 

 Respondent – Appellee, 

 and 

DALE HUMPHREYS, Warden, 

 Respondent. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, 

District Judge. (3:05-cv-00827) 

Submitted: September 24, 2009 Decided: October 2, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Patricia Ann Aldridge, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, 

Deputy Attorney General, Robert David Goldberg, Assistant 

Attorney General, Darrell V. McGraw, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for 

Appellee. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

2 
3 

PER CURIAM: 

Patricia Ann Aldridge seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Aldridge has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### Hiram S. Pennoyer v. The City of Saginaw.

A municipal corporation which, creates a private nuisance is *prima facie*liable for its continuance.

*Heard October 6th.*

*Decided October 13th.*

Error to Saginaw Circuit. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

*Sutherland d)*Miller, for plaintiff in error.

*Moore <&*Gaylord, for defendants in error.

Manning J.:

This is an action against the city of Saginaw, for maintaining, keeping up and continuing in said city, since the first day of January, 1859, certain ditches, whereby thesur*535plus surface water of the city is thrown upon the land of the plaintiff, to his great injury. On the trial, after introducing evidence to show his title to the land on 1st January, 1859, and that he was in possession thereof, the existence of the ditches, and the injury done to the land, he offered in evidence the record of the proceedings of thecommon council of the city, in 1858, to prove the making of contracts and employment of men hy the city to dig the ditch hy which the water was turned on his land. It was ■objected to, and ruled out by the court, but for what reason does not appear from the bill of exceptions. If on the ground that it was of proceedings anterior to the plaintiff’s title, and his possession of the land — as stated in the brief submitted by defendant’s counsel — it is only necessary to say that the city, hy creating the nuisance, which the evidence offered tended to prove, is prima facie liable for its continuance.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and a new trial granted.

The other Justices concurred.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT

TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Dynamic Response Group, Inc (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Melissa K. Rice, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|                        
|------------------------
|Dated: March 31, 2008   
|                        
|/s/ Melissa K. Rice     
|Melissa K. Rice         
|Chief Accounting Officer
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v WILLIAM R. BOSLEY, Lance Corporal, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

17 USCMA 350, 38 CMR 148

No. 20,418

January 12, 1968

*Quentin W. Banks, Esquire,*argued the cause for Appellant, Accused. With him on the brief was *Major L. G. Bohlen,*USMC.

*351
      *Lieutenant William A. Carnahan,*USNR, argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief was *Lieutenant Colonel C. R. Larouche,*USMC.

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

To discredit certain aspects of the accused’s testimony, in which he denied breaking into the Main Post Exchange at the Marine Corps Air Station, Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii, and stealing a substantial amount of merchandise, the prosecution called as a rebuttal witness a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He was allowed to testify about a statement made by the accused at the Provost Marshal’s Office during the investigation of the offenses.

Previous to the statement the accused was advised of his right to remain silent and the right to “talk with a lawyer,” but he was not informed he had a right to appointed counsel and to counsel’s presence during the interrogation. While the advice satisfied legal requirements for admissibility at the time the statement was obtained, the omissions were fatal to admission in evidence at the time of trial. United States v Tempia, 16 USCMA 629, 37 CMR 249; United States v Hardy, 17 USCMA 100, 37 CMR 364. It was, therefore, error to admit the Agent’s testimony.

In view of our conclusion as to the Agent’s testimony, we need not consider the other assignments of error which relate to the same offenses. The decision of the board of review as to the findings of guilty of Charges I and II, and their respective specifications, is reversed, and those findings of guilty and the sentence are set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for resubmission to the board of review. In its discretion, the board of review may reassess the sentence on the basis of the findings of guilty of Charge III, specifications 2 and 3, to which the accused pleaded guilty, or it may order a rehearing of Charges I and II and the sentence.

Judges FERGUSON and Kilday concur.
#### John O. Murdock, *Appellant, v.*William Youmans, and John J. Youmans, *Respondents.*

— J udgment affirmed with costs. Opinion by Bockes, J.;

Learned, P. J., and Boardman, J., concurring.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-13-00203- CR
Candace Orn, Appellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F Cal dw el l CO UNTY, 421 st JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 12- 095, H ONO RAB LE TO DD. A. B LOM ERTH, JUDGE P RESIDING

O R D E R
P ER CURIAM

Appellant’s brief was orig inally due September 11, 2013. When no brief was filed, this Court’s cler

k sent notice to appellant’ s counsel, Howar d S. J enkins, informing him that the brief
was ove rdue. In response , J enkins filed a motion requesting an ex tension of t ime to file the brie f, which this Court g rante d in part. Subsequently , J enkins filed two additional motions reque sting an exten s i o n o f t i m e to file t he brief, which this Court also g rante d. I n g ranting the l ast motion, this Court extended the dea dline until J anuar y 2, 2014, and indicate d that no further extensions would be g rante d. No brief was filed. This Court’s cler k ag ain sent notice to Jenkins inf orming him that the brief was ag ain overdue
. I n response , J enkins has filed a fourth motion reque sting an extension of time to file the brie f.We deny the m otion. We h er eb y o rder appellant’ s counsel, Howard S. J enkins, to

tender a brief in this cause no later than Fe bruar y 11, 2014. Fa ilure to file the brief by that date will result in counsel being called befor e this Court to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for violating this order.

I t is so ordered on this the 27th day of January , 2014.

Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Rose

2
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8442 

To temporarily expand the supplemental nutrition assistance program income 

eligibility of households that include certain veterans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 16, 2024 

Ms. PORTER (for herself and Mr. VALADAO) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To temporarily expand the supplemental nutrition assistance 

program income eligibility of households that include certain veterans. 

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 ‘‘Setting the Table for 

5 Transition Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TEMPORARY EXPANDED SNAP INCOME ELIGIBILITY 

7 OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT INCLUDE CERTAIN 

8 VETERANS. 

9 For the purpose of determining income under the 

10 Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8442 IH

1 during the 100-day period that begins on the date a vet2 eran receives a Report of Separation (DD form 214) of 

3 a household that includes a member who is a veteran, only 

4 the income of such veteran shall be considered. 

5 SEC. 3. DEFINITION. 

6 For purposes of this Act, the term ‘‘veteran’’ means 

7 an individual who served in the active military, naval, or 

8 air service, and who was discharged or released therefrom 

9 under conditions other than dishonorable. 

10 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

11 This Act shall take effect 90 days after the date of 

12 the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### Rodman Clark and another, *Appellants, v.*Benjamin F. Angel, *Respondent, Impleaded, etc.*

*—*Judgment reversed and new trial ordered before another referee, costs to abide event. Opinion by Haedin, J.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8439 

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to modify household income 

to exclude income earned by a member who is 21 years of age or 

younger and who is an elementary or secondary school student. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 16, 2024 

Mr. MOLINARO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to modify 

household income to exclude income earned by a member 

who is 21 years of age or younger and who is an elementary or secondary school student. 

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 

5 ‘‘ThinkDIFFERENTLY Nutrition and Opportunities Act 

6 of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8439 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT. 

2 Section 5(d)(7) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 

3 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2014(d)(7)) is amended— 

4 (1) by striking ‘‘a child who is’’, and 

5 (2) by striking ‘‘17’’ and inserting ‘‘21’’. 

6 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

7 This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall 

8 take effect on January 1, 2025. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### Same *v.*Same.

— Order reversed, and motion to change the place of trial granted, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to abide event.
#### Commonwealth *v.*Black, Appellant.

Submitted November 21, 1968.

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Eagen, O’Brien and Koberts, JJ.

*151
      *Lloyd Black,*appellant, in propria persona.

*James D. Crawford,*Assistant District Attorney, *Richard A. Sprague,*First Assistant District Attorney, and *Arlen Specter,*District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

January 15, 1969:

Opinion by

Me. Justice Roberts,

This is an appeal from the dismissal without hearing of appellant’s second petition for collateral relief. On this petition he raises four claims: (1) denial of effective assistance of counsel at trial; (2) his guilty plea was not voluntarily and knowingly entered; (3) his privilege against self-incrimination was violated; (4) there was insufficient evidence of guilt for the court to properly accept his guilty plea. However, we need not reach the merits of any of these claims because of appellant’s prior collateral attack proceeding.

On September 20, 1967 appellant filed his first post-conviction petition. Counsel was appointed for him and he was granted a full hearing on his two contentions: (1) he had not been advised of his right to appeal; (2) his confession was unlawfully induced. The hearing judge denied the petition after finding no merit in the petitioner’s claims. Although there was an opportunity for appeal, none was taken from this determination; rather this second petition was filed. Because of these events we conclude that by the terms *152of section 4(a)(1) of the Post Conviction Hearing Act, appellant’s allegations about the involuntariness of his guilty plea have been “finally litigated.” Further, because appellant had a hearing at which he was represented by counsel, we hold that his claims about effective assistance of counsel, self-incrimination and insufficient evidence of guilt to accept his guilty plea all have been waived by his failure to raise them at the first hearing. Since appellant does not produce any evidence of extraordinary circumstances which would justify this failure, we must assume that his failure to raise was knowing and understanding. Act of January 25, 1966, P. L. (1965) 1580, 19 P.S. §1180-4(b) ; *Commonwealth v. Satchell,*430 Pa. 443, 243 A. 2d 381 (1968); *Commonwealth ex rel. Linde v. Maroney,*432 Pa. 324, 248 A. 2d 235 (1968).

Therefore, we affirm the dismissal of appellant’s second petition by the hearing judge as a correct implementation of the terms of section 4 of the Post Conviction Hearing Act.

Mr. Justice Cohen took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Former President George W. Bush was named as the original lead respondent in this 1

case. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), the Court automatically substitutes his

successor, President Barack H. Obama, as the new lead respondent.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AHMED YASLAM SAID KUMAN,

Petitioner,

v. Civil Action No. 08-1235 (JDB)

BARACK H. OBAMA, et al.,1

 Respondents.

ORDER

Upon consideration of petitioner's motion to stay the proceedings in this case, and the

entire record herein, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. It is further

ORDERED as follows:

1. Proceedings in this matter are stayed until April 30, 2009;

2. Either party may move to lift the stay upon notice to the other party; and

3. The status conference currently scheduled for February 11, 2009 is cancelled for

this case. The status conference shall proceed as to the other petitioners for 

whom it is scheduled;

4. The parties in this case are relieved of their obligations under the Case 

Management Order until the stay is lifted; 

5. The terms of the September 11, 2008 Protective Order and Procedures for

Counsel Access to Detainees shall remain in effect.
SO ORDERED.

 /s/ 

 JOHN D. BATES

 United States District Judge

Dated: February 3, 2009
May 8, 1978

#### Probert v Judicial Tenure Commission (In the Matter of Probert).

(Docket Nos. 61373, 61331.)

Complaint for superintending control, motion for immediate consideration, and petition for interim suspension are considered. The motion for immediate consideration is granted. The Tenure Commission shall promptly file a supplemental *966complaint stating with more specificity the allegations contained in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 12 of its formal complaint no. 21, and serve a copy of the supplemental complaint on plaintiff. The complaint for superintending control is denied in all other respects and we retain no further jurisdiction thereof. Consequently, the petition for interim suspension filed on behalf of the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission is denied without prejudice. We retain no further jurisdiction.

*Cholette, Perkins & Buchanan*for plaintiff. *Joseph P. Regnier*for the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission, defendant.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ROGER KENNETH CRAWFORD

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 22

- 2139

[ April 13, 2023 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St.

Lucie County ; William L. Roby , Judge; L.T. Case No s

. 562021CF002226A

and 562022CF000661A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, Christine C. Geraghty, and Ross F.

Berlin , Assistant Public Defender s , West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance required for appel lee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

M AY

, C IKLIN and A RTAU

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Before the First Division,

December 26, 1940

No. 45059.

#### Protests 730151-G (A), etc., of A. D. Cohen Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is similar to that the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protests were therefore sustained.
SMRH:4871

- 6888

- 0813.1 

### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23

- 0575

RIKKI HELD, et al.,
Plaintiffs / Appellees

v. STATE OF MONTANA, et al.,
Defendants / Appellants

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE A BRIEF AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS/ APPELLEES

Pursuant to the Unopposed Motion by Montana Interfaith Power and Light for leave to file
an Amicus Brief and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Montana Interfaith Power and Light shall have up to and
including April 3, 2024 to file their Amicus Brief.

Dated _________ __, 2024,

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

March 21 2024

03/21/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0575
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 DayStar Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the Report), I, John R. Tuttle, President, and Chief Executive 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: May 14, 2004



/s/ John R. TuttleJohn R. Tuttle, President andChief Executive Officer
| Name: Baofeng Xingsheng Coal Mining Co., Ltd.            |   | Mineral Resource: Coal                 |
|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|                                                     |   |                                   |
| Address: Zhaozhuang Village, Daying Town, Baofeng County |   | Underground Mining                     |
|                                                     |   |                                   |
| Mine: Xingsheng coal mine                                |   | Production: 150,000 metric ton/year    |
|                                                     |   |                                   |
| Type of Company: Limited Liability Company               |   | Size of Mine: 0.1949 square kilometers |
|                                                     |   |                                   |
| Effective Period: From May 30, 2007 to July 30, 2012     |   |                                   |

|   | 1.   | 3754482.00, 38392585.00 |
|--------|----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 2.   | 3754345.00, 38392645.00 |
|--------|----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 3.   | 3754313.00, 38392600.00 |
|--------|----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 4.   | 3754196.00, 38392640.00 |
|--------|----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 5.   | 3754283.00, 38392875.00 |
|--------|----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 6.   | 3754164.00, 38392933.00 |
|--------|----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 7.   | 3754046.00, 38393000.00 |
|--------|----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 8.   | 3753886.00, 38393070.00 |
|--------|----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 9.   | 3753886.00, 38393290.00 |
|--------|----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 10.   | 3753701.00, 38393377.00 |
|--------|-----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 11.   | 3754076.00, 38393256.00 |
|--------|-----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 12.   | 3754497.00, 38393147.00 |
|--------|-----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 13.   | 3754497.00, 38392806.00 |
|--------|-----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 14.   | 3754425.00, 38392806.00 |
|--------|-----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 15.   | 3754444.00, 38392788.00 |
|--------|-----------------|-------------------------|