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








Certification








Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63


of Title 18, United States Code)





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  1350), the undersigned officer of SonomaWest Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify that:





The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated: May 16, 2011











/s/ Craig R. Stapleton


Craig R. Stapleton,


Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN**  RonorablsB. S. Wyohr OOtttd~ Aualtor 

### ar4ga00~~ Lo~vlwt, **Toram** Dur **Sirt** Opirlion No. O-4720 Rer Son at **County**

very truly foura ATTOR.WRY



### ammu OF mms Wm. J. Fmnlng Aarrl8tatltl
(Reap. Dec. 8416)

Entry No. 730432, etc.

#### Charles H. Fischberg & Co., Ltd. *v.*United States

(Decided April 15, 1955)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

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

Wilson, 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:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the market value or price at the time of exportation of the binocular-speetaclejpowerseopes covered by the invoices and entries herein at which such or similar .'merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from^which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, including all costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States was 20(6 each, net packed, and that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise herein at the time of the exportation thereof.

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

*483On 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 binocular-spectacle powerscopes here involved, and that such value was 20 cents each, net, packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Mario PENA, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-50212.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 16, 2005.

J. Mark Childs, Esq., USLA—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jose C. Rojo, Esq., Jose C. Rojo Law Offices, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: REINHARDT, RYMER and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Mario Pena appeals his 168-month sentence imposed following a guilty plea conviction for distribution and possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846.

We dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. *See United States v. Nguyen,*235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000) (stating that an appeal waiver is valid when it is entered into knowingly and voluntarily); *see also United States v. Cardenas,*405 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that the changes in sentencing law imposed by *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), did not render waiver of appeal involuntary and unknowing).

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
City Hall 501 Laurel Street Brainerd, Minnesota 56401

www.ci.brainerd.mn.us
Mayor (218) 828-2308 Fax (218) 828·2316 CityAdministrator

(218) 828-2307 Fax (218) 828-2316 admin@ci.brainerd.mn.us CivilAttorney 411 Front Street

P.O. Box.367 (218) 828-2775 Fax(218)829-9768 Crll'ninal Attorney 510Norwood Street

(218) 828-2311 Fax (218) 825·8922

City Engineer (218) 828-2309 Fax (218) 828-2316 engineer@ci.brainerd.mn.us Chief of Pollee 225 East River Road

(218) 829-2805 Fax(218)825-3489 FlreChiet 23 Laurel Street (218) 828-2312 Fax(218)828·2331 fire@cl.brainerd.mn.us August 16, 2012

Mr. Dennis DeVany Mr. Brian Swanson Office of Aviation Analysis Gentlemen: On behalf ofthe Brainerd City Council, please accept this letter as full support of SkyWest Airlines serving the Brainerd Lakes Regional Airport. The Brainerd Lakes Regional Airport, which is jointly owned bythe City of Brainerd and Crow Wing County, has been in operation since 1946 and is our "jewel" in the Brainerd Lakes Area. As a public facility all citizens are stakeholders of the facility and the use of the facility is provided both to theflying and non-flying public. As I'm sure you are aware, the Brainerd lakes area is a premiere vacation and sports designation. When I read about SkyWest's use of 50-passengerjets that have the cargo space not onlyfor luggage but also the abilityto carry cargo for hockey camps and golfing passengers, Iwas excited and Iknew this was the airline to best serve ourarea. The Cityof Brainerd and its surrounding area is also a business destination with many area residents traveling into and out ofthe airportfor business purposes. It is essential we have reliable service in orderto accommodate ourbusiness community. If Ican provide additional information to facilitate your decision of SkyWest Airlines being Brainerd's air service provider, please don't hesitate to contact me.

cuy Planner Thankyou for allowing me this opportunity. (218) 828-2310 Fax {218) 828-2316 planning@ci.brainerd.mn.us 

## s· cerely, Directorof Parka & Recreation : , (218) 828-2320 ; / Fax (218) 828·2791 '

. · parks@cl.brainerd.mn.us · · Public Utilities 

### a

### ~Oe . P.O. Box 373 Council P s1dent**~** (218) 829·8726 • fax (218) 829-4703**~** (218) 829-2193 • fax (218) 829·2308 email@bpu.org Equal Opportunity Employer () Printedon RecycledPaper PaperandPrintingProducedLocally
(Reap. Dec. 8850)

#### J. D. Smith Inter-Ocean, Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 971121, etc.

(Decided June 20, 1957)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Laweence, Judge:

The appeals for a reappraisement presently before the court raise the question of the proper dutiable value of the items of merchandise enumerated in the schedule of reappraisement appeals attached to and made part of this decision.

Limiting themselves to said enumerated items of merchandise, the parties agreed that, at the time of exportation of said merchandise, there was no foreign, export, or United States value, as defined in section 402 (c), (d), or (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (c), (d), or (e)); that cost of production, as defined in section 402 (f) of said act (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (f)), is the proper basis of appraisement; and that said cost of production is as set forth in the annexed schedule.

Upon the agreed facts of record, I find and hold that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f), *supra,*is the proper basis of value for the items of merchandise enumerated in the schedule of reappraisement appeals, attached to and made part of this decision, and that said value is as shown on the attached schedule for each of the involved items.

*700As to all other items of merchandise covered by the appeals for a reappraisement herein, there is no evidence to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the appraiser’s action. Therefore the proper value of said items of merchandise is the value found by the appraiser.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000101880
<NAME> FDS 27.1
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         974,856
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      13,429,486
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             1,025,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                10,233
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  4,492,665
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         604,415
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           609,032
<LOANS>                                     16,145,931
<ALLOWANCE>                                    280,969
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,081,478
<DEPOSITS>                                  17,013,116
<SHORT-TERM>                                 5,439,901
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            535,444
<LONG-TERM>                                    962,834
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       559,690
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,570,493
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              26,081,478
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                324,339
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               71,366
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                29,603
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               425,308
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             125,897
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             198,348
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          226,960
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   23,096
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               2,613
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                180,988
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                131,541
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      84,873
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    84,873
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.76<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.75<F2>
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.18
<LOANS-NON>                                     65,528
<LOANS-PAST>                                    66,960
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 75,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               281,394
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   31,248
<RECOVERIES>                                     6,196
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              280,969
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
<FN>
<F1>Basic EPS per Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 128
<F2>Diluted EPS per Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 128
</FN>
        





</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 22, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51448

Summary Calendar

BILLY LANG

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director - CID; SMITH, Warden; MASSINGELL,

Warden; O'REILLY, Warden; SLOAN, Major; BUNGER, Sergeant; 

UNKNOWN A; UNKNOWN B; UNKNOWN C 

Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:04-CV-214

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Billy Lang, Texas prisoner # 613800, proceeding pro se, filed a 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 against Douglas Dretke, Director of the Texas Department of Criminal

Justice - Criminal Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID), and other corrections

officials and officers of the Alfred Hughes Unit. Lang alleged that the

defendants failed to abate a known risk of violence and failed to provide him
No. 05-51448

2

with adequate medical attention for injuries from an assault. The district court

dismissed the suit as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), finding that

Lang had failed to exhaust his prison administrative remedies, as required by

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), with respect to inadequate-medical-treatment claim and

that Lang had failed to allege more than a de minimis injury, as required by

§ 1997e(e), for civil actions alleging mental or emotional injury. 

A district court may dismiss a complaint as frivolous “‘where it lacks an

arguable basis either in law or in fact.’” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31-33

(1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)). Because the

district court dismissed as frivolous for failing to state a claim pursuant to

§ 1997e(e), this court should review the dismissal de novo. See Geiger v. Jowers,

404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005). 

With respect to exhaustion, the district court’s determination that Lang

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies was premature because exhaustion

is an affirmative defense that must be raised by the defendant. See Jones v.

Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910, 921 (2007). With respect to the failure-to-protect claim,

Lang’s pleadings were sufficient to allege conditions of incarceration that posed

a substantial risk of serious harm to which prison officials were deliberately

indifferent. See Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 533 (5th Cir. 1995). The district

court’s judgment is VACATED and the case is REMANDED to the district court

for further proceedings.

We do not consider Lang’s assertion that it is wrong for prison officials to

collect filing fees from his prisoner account because it was not raised below. See

Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999).
# C_2015073EN.01004702.xml

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/47

---

Action brought on 8 January 2015 — Ice Mountain Ibiza/OHIM — Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club (ocean ibiza)

(Case T-6/15)

(2015/C 073/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL (San Antonio, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Gracia Albero, lawyer, and F. Miazzetto, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club, SL (Puerto Banús, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘ocean ibiza’ — Application for registration No 10 610 525

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2014 in Case R 2207/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM dated 8 October 2014 in Case R 2207/2013-1 so as to reject the opposition filed by Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club, SL and grant the application for a Community trade mark No 10 610 525 ‘ocean ibiza’ (mixed) in Class 41; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM dated 8 October 2014 in Case R 2207/2013-1 so as to reject the opposition filed by Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club, SL and grant the application for a Community trade mark No 10 610 525 ‘ocean ibiza’ (mixed) in Class 41; and

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings as well as all those incurred to date in the earlier proceedings before the Opposition Division and the First Board of Appeal of OHIM that have led to the present application. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings as well as all those incurred to date in the earlier proceedings before the Opposition Division and the First Board of Appeal of OHIM that have led to the present application.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7129

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LINO H. HAYNES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (2:90-cr-00105-HCM)

Submitted: June 30, 2008 Decided: July 14, 2008

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lino H. Haynes, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Philip Rosenberg, United

States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Lino H. Haynes appeals the district court’s order denying

his Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) motion and denying reconsideration of

its May 11, 2004 order granting in part and denying in part his

Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) motion. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. See United States v. Haynes, No.

2:90-cr-00105-HCM (E.D. Va. filed July 9, 2007; entered July 12,

2007). 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.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              APR-26-1998
<CASH>                                        705,523
<SECURITIES>                                        0         
<RECEIVABLES>                              29,476,081
<ALLOWANCES>                                1,141,000
<INVENTORY>                                21,554,503
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           97,963,834 
<PP&E>                                    193,631,512
<DEPRECIATION>                             71,754,704
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            292,197,602
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      42,106,331
<BONDS>                                   127,625,612
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       96,593
<OTHER-SE>                                106,666,638
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              292,197,602
<SALES>                                    12,912,627 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           70,336,186
<CGS>                                      10,923,027         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              62,737,171 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          1,982,213
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             3,554,270
<INCOME-TAX>                                1,351,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         2,202,370
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                2,202,370
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.23
        

</TABLE>
#### Emmanuel Senyo AGYEMAN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 04-16672.

D.C. No. CV-03-01474-PHX-PGR.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 5, 2005.

Emmanuel Senyo Agyeman, Phoenix, AZ, pro se.

Mark J. Wenker, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Emmanuel Senyo Agyeman appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing his qui tam action filed pursuant to the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., alleging that Corrections Corporation of America fraudulently billed the United States for a portion of his detainment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the statutory interpretation of the FCA, *United States ex rel. Sequoia Orange Co. v. Baird-Neece Packing Corp.,*151 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Agyeman’s qui tam action because the government investigated his claims, and determined that they lacked merit, and notified Agyeman of its motion to dismiss, and then the court gave Agyeman an opportunity to be heard. *See*31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A); *United States ex rel. Kelly v. Boeing Co.,*9 F.3d 743, 753 (9th Cir.1993).

Agyeman’s contention that the government must intervene before it can move for dismissal is without merit. *See*31 *67U.S.C. § 8729(c)(2)(A); *Kelly,*9 F.3d at 752.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>



                                                                    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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, filed pursuant
to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, of
UNIFAB International, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended September 30,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Peter J. Roman, the Chief Financial 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:

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

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

/s/ Peter J. Roman
--------------------------------
Name: Peter J. Roman
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date: November 12, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to UNIFAB International, Inc. and will be retained by UNIFAB
International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.



                                       26
# C_2017144EN.01006103.xml

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/61

---

Order of the General Court of 15 March 2017 — EFB v Commission

(Case T-150/15) (1)

1

(2017/C 144/88)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.

1

---