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



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
  (a)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
 (b)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Nathaniel F. Bradley IVNathaniel F. Bradley IVChairman of the Board, President andChief Executive OfficerMay 9, 2006 /s/ Mark A. RedmanMark A. RedmanVice President  Finance and

Chief Financial OfficerMay 9, 2006 30
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7275
In Re: ANDRE GERARD LEWIS, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-99-314) Submitted: October 24, 2002 Decided: October 31, 2002 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andre Gerard Lewis, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Andre Lewis petitions for a writ of mandamus. Lewis seeks an order directing the district court to address certain issues raised in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. SeeIn re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re United Steelworkers , 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). The relief sought by Lewis is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. 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.

PETITION DENIED
May 18, 1955

No. 59097.

Suit 4815.

#### George E. Bardwil & Sons *v.*United States.

C. D. 1591 affirmed February 8,

1955. C. A. D. 583.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21A1224. KYLE RICHARD BISHOP v. THE STATE.

In 2000, Kyle RichardBishop was convicted of one count of child molestation,

two counts of aggravated child molestation, and one count of aggravated sexual

battery. This Court affirmed Bishop’s convictions on direct appeal. Bishop v. State,

252 Ga. App. 211 (555 SE2d 504) (2001). Recently,Bishop filed a motion for out-oftime appeal. The trial court dismissed the motion, and Bishop filed this appeal. We

lack jurisdiction.

“An out-of-time appeal is a judicial creation that serves as the remedy for a

frustrated right of appeal.” Kilgore v. State, 325 Ga. App. 874, 875 (1) (756 SE2d 9)

(2014). Because Bishop already has had a direct appeal, he is not entitled to an

out-of-time appeal. See Richards v. State, 275 Ga. 190, 191 (563 SE2d 856) (2002)

(“[T]here is no right to directly appeal the denial of a motion for out-of-time appeal

filed by a criminal defendant whose conviction has been affirmed on direct appeal.”)

(punctuation omitted). Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of

jurisdiction. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

April 20, 2021

04/20/2021
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 10.5


                             CERTIFICATE OF LOCATION
                            NEVADA-LODE MINING CLAIM

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that DESERT PACIFIC EXPLORATION INC.,
Incorporate in Nevada, whose address is 12475 Overbrook Drive, Reno, Nevada
89511, has located and claimed the Ule #19 Lode Mining Claim in the
following quarter sections(s):

NE   1/4,    Section    11     Township 1N,        Range 32E,       MDB7M
NW   1/4,    Section           Township 1N,        Range 32E,       MDB&M
SE   1/4,    Section    2      Township 1N,        Range 32E,       MDB&M
SW   1/4,    Section           Township 1N,        Range 32E,       MDB&M

In Mineral County, Nevada, on the 30th day of October, 1996.

SAID CLAIM IS A LODE CLAIM, it being situated in the above mentioned County and
State, and is approximately 1500 feet long and 600 feet wide, such that 1475
feet is claimed in an South direction and 25 feet in an North direction from the
point of discovery (monument of location), at which the Notice of Location was
posted, together with 300 feet on each side of the monument of location and
center line of the Claim. The general course of the lode or vein is from the
South to the North.

THE NUMBER, LOCATION, AND MARKINGS On each monument are as follows:

         Location          Markings                Description
         --------          --------                -----------

No. 1 Northeast corner     diagram, metal tag      2"x2"xz4' wooden post
No. 2 Southeast corner     diagram, metal tag      2"x2"xz4' wooden post
No. 3 Southwest corner     diagram, metal tag      2"x2"xz4' wooden post
No. 4 Northwest corner     diagram, metal tag      2"x2"xz4' wooden post

A CLAIM MAP as required by NRS 517.040 is included as part of the work of
location.

Dated:  January 11, 1997

               RECEIVED                   DESERT PACIFIC EXPLORATION INC.
        Bur. Of Land Management
          9:00 A.M.  JAN 24 97            BY: /s/ Herb Duerr
          NEVADA STATE OFFICE                 Herb Duerr, President
            RENO, NEVADA
Exhibit 32.2


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the report of American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Stephen A. Hozie, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge,
that:

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

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


April 29, 2005

                                                   /s/ Stephen A. Hozie
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Stephen A. Hozie
                                                Executive Vice President and
                                                Chief Financial Officer
February 9, 1943

No. 47999.

Suit 4386.

#### United *States v. Mill & Mine Supply Co.*

C. D. 561 affirmed. C. A. D. 224.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8510 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8510

 To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to encourage the use of native 
                  vegetation, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 22, 2024

  Ms. Tokuda introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to encourage the use of native 
                  vegetation, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. ENCOURAGEMENT OF NATIVE VEGETATION USE.

    Section 1244(h) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
3844(h)) is amended--
            (1) in the heading, by inserting ``and Native Vegetation 
        Use'' after ``protection'';
            (2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a 
        semicolon;
            (3) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
            (4) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) the use of native vegetation.''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 56530.

protests 967998-G and 977656-G (Seattle).

#### Samuel S. Perry *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of so-called “artificial gut or artificial tegusu,” in chief value of silk, the same in all material respects as the merchandise the classification of which was involved in *Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(34 C. C. P. A. 17, C. A. D. 338), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
(LOGO) Deloitte & Touche

Deloitte & Touche LLP
700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4500
Seattle, Washington 98104-5044
Telephone: (206) 292-1800
Facsimile: (206) 343-7809


INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT ON
COMPLIANCE WITH UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION
PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE BANKERS


Audit Committee of the Board of Directors
Washington Mutual, Inc.
Seattle, Washington

We have examined  management's  assertion about Washington  Mutual,  lnc.'s (the
Company)  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 the
Company's compliance with those minimum servicing standards.  Our responsibility
is  to  express  an  opinion  on  management's  assertion  about  the  Company'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 the Company'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 the  Company's  compliance  with the minimum  servicing
standards.

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



Deloitte & Touche LLP

February 25,2000

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (Logo)
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION 

THOMAS E. EDWARDS, 

 

 Petitioner, 

 Case No. 2:11-cr-229 

 v. JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST 

 Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Respondent. 

 

 ORDER

 This matter is before the Court for consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s October 28, 

2015 Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 133.) In that filing, the Magistrate Judge 

correctly explained that Petitioner’s August 31, 2015 motion to re-sentence, which challenges his 

sentence, is a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenge. (ECF No. 125.) The February 2014 amendment of 

the sentencing judgment (ECF No. 88) did not render Petitioner’s October 2013 § 2255 motion 

invalid (ECF No. 81), which means that any subsequent § 2255 motion is successive. This in 

turn means that Petitioner’s pending motion to re-sentence is a successive petition over which 

this Court lacks jurisdiction. The motion must be transferred to the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for a determination of whether this Court can address the motion. 

The Report and Recommendation advised Petitioner that a failure to file a timely 

objection would “result in a waiver of the right to have the district judge review the Report and 

Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the 

District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation.” (ECF No. 133, at Page ID # 625.) 

No objections have been filed, the time for filing objections has expired, and the Magistrate 

Case: 2:11-cr-00229-GLF-TPK Doc #: 135 Filed: 11/17/15 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 

Judge’s reasoning is correct. The Court therefore ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation 

(ECF No. 133), DIRECTS the Clerk to open a new 28 U.S.C. § 2255 civil action for statistical 

purposes, and DIRECTS the Clerk to transfer the motion to re-sentence (ECF No. 125) to the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit as a successive petition. 

Additionally, the Court notes that Petitioner’s October 19, 2015 filing is not a motion, 

despite being styled as one. (ECF No. 132.) The Clerk should correct the docket so that it 

indicates that the filing is a notice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ Gregory L. Frost 

 GREGORY L. FROST 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case: 2:11-cr-00229-GLF-TPK Doc #: 135 Filed: 11/17/15 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
<PAGE>

                                                              Exhibit (10)(ii)

                        Consent of Independent Auditors


The Board of Directors
GE Capital Life Assurance Company of New York
  and
Contractholders
GE Capital Life Separate Account II:

We consent to the use of our report included herein and to the reference to our
firm under the heading "Experts" in the Statement of Additional Information.

Richmond, VA
April 19, 2001
                                                        /s/ KPMG LLP
#### John Wanamaker, Philadelphia, et al. *v.*United States

No. 6656.

Entry No. C-340, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, May 1, 1941, etc.

Entered at Philadelphia, Pa., July 31, 1941, etc.

(Decided December 20, 1946)

*Tompkins & Tompkins (J. Stuart, Tompkins*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

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 are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases. -

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
July 16, 1940

No. 44133.

#### Protest 21853-K (A) of H. A. Caesar & Co.

Application by plaintiffs for rehearing granted.
# EPA Registration Jacket

70506-230______________________________________________________________

Page _ is not included in this copy.

Pages 32_ through 33 are not included in this copy.

_______________________________________________________________

The material not included contains the following type of
information:

_____ Identity of product inert ingredients.

_____ Identity of product impurities.

_____ Description of the product manufacturing process.

_____ Description of quality control procedures.

_____ Identity of the source of product ingredients.

_____ Sales or other commercial/financial information.

_____ A draft product label.

__X__ The product confidential statement of formula.

_____ Information about a pending registration action.

_____ FIFRA registration data.

_____ The document is a duplicate of page(s) _______.

_____ The document is not responsive to the request.

_____ Proprietary information pertaining to the chemical composition of an inert ingredient provided by the source of the ingredient.

_____ Attorney-Client Privilege.

_____ Claimed Confidential by submitter upon submission to the

Agency.

_____ Internal Deliberative Information.

* The information not included is generally considered confidential by product registrants. If you have any questions, please contact the individual who prepared the response to your request.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page _ is not included in this copy.

Pages 80_ through 92 are not included in this copy.

_______________________________________________________________

The material not included contains the following type of
information:

_____ Identity of product inert ingredients.

_____ Identity of product impurities.

_____ Description of the product manufacturing process.

_____ Description of quality control procedures.

_____ Identity of the source of product ingredients.

_____ Sales or other commercial/financial information.

_____ A draft product label.

__X__ The product confidential statement of formula.

_____ Information about a pending registration action.

_____ FIFRA registration data.

_____ The document is a duplicate of page(s) _______.

_____ The document is not responsive to the request.

_____ Proprietary information pertaining to the chemical composition of an inert ingredient provided by the source of the ingredient.

_____ Attorney-Client Privilege.

_____ Claimed Confidential by submitter upon submission to the

Agency.

_____ Internal Deliberative Information.

* The information not included is generally considered confidential by product registrants. If you have any questions, please contact the individual who prepared the response to your request.

_________________________________________________________________
Case: 2:10-cv-01054-MHW-MRA Doc #: 23 Filed: 12/12/11 Page: 1 of 1  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-11T20:54:44-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8969 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that aliens who 

have been convicted of or who have committed an offense related to 

entering military, naval, or coast guard property, are inadmissible and 

deportable. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 9, 2024 

Mr. LUTTRELL (for himself, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. ARRINGTON, Ms. HAGEMAN, 

Mr. DUNN of Florida, Mr. BEAN of Florida, and Mrs. KIGGANS of Virginia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide 

that aliens who have been convicted of or who have 

committed an offense related to entering military, naval, 

or coast guard property, are inadmissible and deportable. 

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 ‘‘Protecting Military 

5 Assets Act of 2024’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8969 IH

1 SEC. 2. INADMISSIBILITY AND DEPORTABILITY RELATED 

2 TO ENTERING MILITARY, NAVAL, OR COAST 

3 GUARD PROPERTY. 

4 (a) INADMISSIBILITY.—Section 212(a)(2) of the Im5 migration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)) is 

6 amended by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘(J) ENTERING MILITARY, NAVAL, OR

8 COAST GUARD PROPERTY.—Any alien who has 

9 been convicted of, who admits having com10 mitted, or who admits committing acts which 

11 constitute the essential elements of an offense 

12 under section 1382 of title 18, United States 

13 Code, is inadmissible.’’. 

14 (b) DEPORTABILITY.—Section 237(a)(2) of the Im15 migration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)) is 

16 amended by adding at the end the following: 

17 ‘‘(G) ENTERING MILITARY, NAVAL, OR

18 COAST GUARD PROPERTY.—Any alien who has 

19 been convicted of an offense under section 1382 

20 of title 18, United States Code, is deportable.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION




QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10(b)  


  
 

  Consent of Independent Accountants    
  


We hereby consent to the use in this Registration Statement on Form N-4 (File No. 333-94047) of our report dated March 1, 2001, relating to
the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of Protective Life Insurance Company and Subsidiaries, which appears in such Registration Statement. We also consent to the use
in this Registration Statement of our report dated March 22, 2001, on our audits of the financial statements of The Protective Variable Annuity Separate Account, which appears in such
Registration Statement. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading "Independent Accountants" in such Registration Statement and Statement of Additional Information. 


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Birmingham, Alabama

April 30, 2001 









QuickLinks


Consent of Independent Accountants
EXHIBIT32.4

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OFUCDPFINANCE, INC.PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the quarterly report of UniversalCity Development Partners, Ltd. and UCDP Finance, Inc. (the"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period endingSeptember 26, 2004 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael J.Short, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to myknowledge::

|  |          |                                                                                                                     |
|--|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | 1)  | the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and |

|  |          |                                                                                                                                                    |
|--|----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | 2)  | the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company. |

|                        |  |        |  |                                                        |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|------------------------|--|--------|--|--------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|
| Dated:November 9, 2004 |  | By:    |  | /s/ Michael J.Short                                    |
|                   |  |   |  | Michael J.Short Treasurer (Principal FinancialOfficer) |
|                        |

----