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

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Adolor Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael
R. Dougherty, 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.



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/ Michael R. Dougherty
|Michael R. Dougherty    
|Chief Executive Officer 
|May 3, 2007
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 6510

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. SHANE ELLIOTT HARE, a/k/a Play , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Deborah K. Chasanow , Senior District Judge. ( 8:13

- cr - 00 650

- DKC

- 1 )

Submitted : August 24, 2021 Decided: August 27, 2021

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Shane Elliott Hare, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Ronald Baldwin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Shane Elliott Hare appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We review a district court’s order granting or denying a compassio nate release motion for abuse of discretion. United
States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021). We have reviewed the record and
conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion. The court denied Hare’s motion after discussing the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and sufficiently explained the reasons
for the denial. See United States v. High , 997 F.3d 181, 188

- 91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing
amount of explanation required for denial of straightforward compassionate release motion). We therefore affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 46487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23267]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. TM98-2-34-000]


Florida Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

August 27, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 25, 1997, Florida Gas Transmission 
Company (FGT) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to 
become effective October 1, 1997:

Twenty-Third Revised Sheet No. 8A
Fifteenth Revised Sheet No. 8A.01
Fifteenth Revised Sheet No. 8A.02
Twenty-First Revised Sheet No. 8B
Fourteenth Revised Sheet No. 8B.01

    FGT states that Section 27 of the General Terms and Conditions 
(GTC) of its Tariff provides for the recovery by FGT of gas used in the 
operation of its system and gas lost from the system or otherwise 
unaccounted for. The fuel reimbursement charges pursuant to Section 27 
consist of the Fuel Reimbursement Charge Percentage (FRCP), designed to 
recover current fuel usage on an in-kind basis, and the Unit Fuel 
Surcharge (UFS), designed to recover or refund previous under or 
overcollections on a cash basis. Both the FRCP and the UFS are 
applicable to Market Area deliveries and are effective for seasonal 
periods, changing effective each April 1, (for the Summer Period) and 
each October 1 (for the Winter Period).
    FGT states that is is filing to establish an FRCP of 3.5% to become 
effective October 1, 1997 based on the actual company fuel use, lost 
and unaccounted for volumes, and Market Area deliveries for the period 
from October 1, 1996 through March 31, 1997. FGT states that it is also 
filing to establish a Winter Period UFS of ($0.0019) per MMBtu to 
become effective October 1, 1997.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426 in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's rules 
and regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Loisw D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-23267 Filed 9-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATE OF THE
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
FNBH BANCORP, INC. Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350): I, Janice B. Trouba, Chief Financial Officer of FNBH Bancorp, Inc., certify, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)
that: (1) The annual report on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2004, which this
statement accompanies, fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and; (2) The information contained in this annual report on Form 10-K for the annual period ended
December 31, 2004, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of FNBH Bancorp, Inc. FNBH BANCORP, INC.By:
    
    /s/ JANICE B. TROUBADate: March 16, 2005
    
    
    
    Janice B. TroubaIts:
    
    Chief Financial Officer
 The signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to FNBH Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by FNBH Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 149 (Monday, August 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 41964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20474]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-5868-1]


Risk Assessment and Risk Management Commission

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, 
notice is hereby given that the Risk Assessment and Risk Management 
Commission, established as an Advisory Committee under section 303 of 
the clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, will cease to exist on August 29, 
1997.
    The Commission was formed to make a full investigation of the 
policy implications and appropriate uses of risk assessment and risk 
management in regulatory programs under various Federal laws to prevent 
cancer and other chronic human effects which may result from exposure 
to hazardous substances.
    The Commission has issued a two-volume report. The first volume 
focuses on out Environmental Health Risk Management Framework and its 
implementation. This publication has been prepared for regulatory 
authorities and others who may participate in the risk management 
process as risk managers or stakeholders. Volume 2 addresses many other 
issues related to health and environmental risk-based decisions, 
including recommendations for specific federal regulatory programs and 
agencies.
    Copies of the report can be obtained at the Riskworld website: 
http://www.riskworld.com. A printed copy of the report can be obtained 
from the Government Printing Office. The order desk phone number is 
202-512-1800. Volume One: Framework for Environmental Health Risk 
Management, Stock Number 055-000-00567-2, price $6.00. Volume Two: Risk 
Assessment and Risk Management and Risk Management in Regulatory 
Decision-Making, Stock Number 055-000-00568-1, price $19.00. There is 
an additional 25% charge for foreign orders.

    Dated: July 23, 1997
Gail Charnley,
Executive Director, Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management.
[FR Doc. 97-20474 Filed 8-1-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 26, 2020. 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. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, August 26, 2020 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21D0027. KWESI STULTZ v. THE STATE. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 17B2104
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 28, 2010

s0621 

# Order

June 28, 2010

140386 & (17)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140386 COA: 293610 Wayne CC: 76-005523 DARRYL McGORE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 24, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to
add an issue is DENIED.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Herbert WILLIAMS v. Frank BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 62274.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 2, 1978.

In re: Herbert Williams, applying for remedial writs. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied. Allegations if proved would not support the relief sought.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-09-00024-CV

______________________________

JIMMIE DON ALLEN, Appellant

V.

JOHN CHARLES HARGUS, Appellee

 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Hopkins County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV38078

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JimmyDon Allen, appellant, filed his notice of appeal from the trial court's order of dismissal

February 19, 2009. The clerk's record was filed May 27, 2009. No reporter's record was requested

or filed. Allen's brief was therefore due June 26, 2009. 

Allen filed a request for an extension of time. In that motion, counsel for plaintiff mentioned

that "[a]n offer to mediate has been made . . . and Appellant respectfully requests this extension as

an opportunity to pursue the mediation." In granting that first motion to extend, this Court specified

that should the parties desire mediation, they should jointly seek an order from this Court before

July 27, 2009. No mediation order was requested; instead, a second request for an extension of time

to file the brief was requested, with the same language as the reason for the extension. The Court

overruled that motion for extension of time. In our order overruling that extension, we informed

counsel that failure to file the brief on or before August 25, 2009, could result in the appeal being

dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c). 
3

It is now September 15, and no brief has been filed. Pursuant to Rule 42.3(b) and (c) of the

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.3(b), (c). 

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: September 15, 2009

Date Decided: September 16, 2009
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 9, 2017

s0606

Order 

Clerk

June 9, 2017

154103

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 154103

COA: 331966

Oakland CC: 2011-236622-FH

BARBARA MIRA JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 27, 2016 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TAMAR TESSLER, an individual,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

DAN ZADOK, an individual,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-55564

D.C. No. 2:08-cv-05695-R-RC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 27, 2011** 

Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

In this diversity action, Dan Zadok appeals pro se from the district court’s

order denying his motion to vacate a default judgment entered in favor of Appellee

Tamar Tessler. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1921. We review for an

abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a motion to set aside a default

FILED

OCT 7 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-55564

judgment. TCI Group Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 695 (9th Cir.

2001) (“TCI”). We vacate and remand.

In seeking to vacate the default judgment, Zadok submitted a declaration

stating that he did not receive service of process and that he has no roommate,

contradicting the process server’s receipt. The record reflects neither the evidence

nor the law on which the district court based its decision to deny Zadok’s motion to

set aside the default judgment. The district court may have denied the motion by

considering Zadok’s evidence and the factors set forth in Falk v. Allen, 739 F.2d

461 (9th Cir. 1984) (per curiam), or alternatively in S.E.C. v. Internet Solutions for

Business Inc., 509 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir. 2007). However, because we are

unable to discern either the legal or the factual bases for the district court’s

decision, we are unable to assess whether the district court abused its discretion. 

See United States v. Mesle, 615 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010) (in assessing

abuse of discretion, this Court must determine first whether the district court

identified the correct legal rule to apply and second whether the application of that

rule was illogical, implausible, or without support in the record); see also TCI, 244

F.3d at 696 (“[I]n applying the general terms of Rule 60(b) to default judgments,

this Court has emphasized that such judgments are ‘appropriate only in extreme

circumstances; a case should, whenever possible, be decided on the merits.’”
3 10-55564

(quoting Falk, 739 F.2d at 463)). Accordingly, we vacate and remand for further

proceedings consistent with our disposition. 

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. 

VACATED and REMANDED.
#### Dorothy Sellers GRICE v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY.

No. 61566.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 24, 1978.

In re: Aetna Casualty & Surety Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Orleans. 353 So.2d 401.

Writ granted.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
Exhibit  32.2
                                                                  -------------

                                 ALPHATRADE.COM
                              A Nevada corporation

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of AlphaTrade.com. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Katharine Johnston, Principal Accounting Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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.




Dated: May 20, 2009                          /s/ Katharine Johnston
                                             ---------------------------------
                                             Its: Principal Accounting Officer


         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
         other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
         signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of
         this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be
         retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
         Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certifications are
         accompanying the Company's Form 10-Q solely 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) and is not being
         filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.














                                Exhibit 32.1 - 1
No. 00-7212.

#### Ward *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
Exhibit
23.1








Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm






We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus, constituting a part
of this Registration Statement, of our reports dated March 13, 2009
relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of
Middlesex Water Company’s internal control
over financial reporting, appearing in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2008.





We also
consent to the reference to us under the caption “Experts” in the
Prospectus.








/s/ Beard
Miller Company LLP




Beard
Miller Company LLP


Reading,
Pennsylvania


March 13,
2009
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Leonard WASHINGTON.

Nos. 58711, 58712 and 58713.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 1, 1977.

Rehearings Denied Sept. 2, 1977.

William D. O’Regan, III, Laplace, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Melvin P. Barre, Dist. Atty., Roland J. St. Martin, Asst. Dist. Atty., Abbott J. Reeves, Director, Regina C. Cooper, Research Atty., Research and Appeals Division, Metairie, for plaintiff-appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 176 (Thursday, September 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 47819]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24168]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act. Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking 
activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 6, 1997.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (A. Linwood Gill III, Assistant 
Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
    1. MainStreet BankGroup Incorporated, Martinsville, Virginia; to 
acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Commerce Bank Corporation, 
College Park, Maryland.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (D. Michael Manies, 
Assistant Vice President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 
64198-0001:
    1. First National Bank of Las Animas ESOP, Las Animas, Colorado; to 
become a bank holding company by acquiring up to 8.03 percent; for a 
total of up to 29.40 percent, of the voting shares of First Bankshares 
of Las Animas, Inc., Las Animas, Colorado; and thereby indirectly 
acquire First National Bank, Las Animas, Colorado.
    C. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Genie D. Short, Vice President) 
2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. Citizens Bankers, Inc., Baytown, Texas; to acquire 67 percent of 
the voting shares of First National Bank of Bay City, Bay City, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 8, 
1997.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-24168 Filed 9-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F