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



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER



PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO



SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002



I, David Hills, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of LookSmart, Ltd. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of LookSmart, Ltd.



Date: August 9, 2005By:

/s/ David B. HillsName:

David B. HillsTitle:

Chief Executive Officer




I, William B. Lonergan, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of LookSmart, Ltd. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of LookSmart, Ltd.



Date: August 9, 2005By:

/s/ William B. LonerganName:

William B. LonerganTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

KNIGHTDALE AIRPORT, INC 

AND CARLINA, INC. 

COMPLAINANT 

v. 

COUNTY OF FRANKLIN, 

NORTH CAROLINA, 

TRIANGLE NORTH 

EXECUTIVE AIRPORT 

RESPONDENT. 

FAA Docket No. 16-13-08 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted 

Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CPR, Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CPR Part 16, subpart B, 

the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby 

extended to February 17,2015. 

An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this 

case. 

Randall S. Fiertz 

Director, Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

sr~/ I HEREBY CERTIFY that on January , 2015, I caused to be placed in the United 

States mail (fust class mail, postage paid) a true copy of the Notice of Extension of Time to 

February 17, 2015, for FAA Docket 16-13-08 addressed to: 

Counsels for Complainant: 

John R. Copley, Esq. 

Garofalo Goerlich Hainbach, PC 

1200 New Hampshire NW 

Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20036 

jcopley(a]ggh-airlaw.com 

Counsel for Respondent: 

David R. Guin, Esq. 

Batton & Guin 

Attorneys at Law 

P.O. Box 603 

107 S. Main Street 

Louisburg, NC 27549. 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-1 00 

Claudia Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 17, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-50586 Consolidated with No. 04-50588 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LUIS ORDUNA-CARRILLO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-320-ALL-PRM

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Luis OrdunaCarrillo raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CHEN WEI REN, )

)

Petitioner, )

) Civil Action No. 04-300 Erie

v. )

)

JAMES SHERMAN, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This petition for writ of habeas corpus was received by the Clerk of Court on

October 12, 2004 and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise

Baxter for report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, filed on June 27,

2005, recommended that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. The parties

were allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to file objections. Service was

made on Petitioner by certified mail at FCI McKean, where he is incarcerated, and on

Respondent. Objections were filed by Petitioner on July 7, 2005. After de novo review

of the petition and documents in the case, together with the Report and

Recommendation and objections thereto, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 27th day of July, 2005;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is 

DENIED.

The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed on

June 27, 2005, is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

 s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cm: All parties of record

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 1:04-cv-00300-SJM-SPB Document 13 Filed 07/27/05 Page 1 of 1
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 33-80080, No. 33-81844, No. 333-03524, No. 333-
40229, No. 333-87061, No. 333-67482) of Hollywood Entertainment Corporation
of our report dated March 21, 2001, except as to Note 25 which is as of
March 29, 2001 and except as to Notes 26 and 27 which are as of December 20,
2001, relating to the financial statements, which appear in this amendment 2
to Annual Report on Form 10-K.



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Portland, Oregon
January 28, 2002

1

2
#### The CITY OF PENSACOLA, Florida, a Florida municipal corporation, Appellant, v. Charles H. BLANCHARD and Van A. Blanchard, husband and wife; E. J. Gibbs, Jr., in his capacity as Tax Collector for Escambia County, Florida; and the State of Florida in Escambia County, Florida; and John R. Jones, Jr., in his capacity as Tax Assessor of Escambia County, Florida, Appellees.

No. M-88.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 3, 1970.

Catón & Catón, Pensacola, for appellant.

Harrell, Wiltshire, Bozeman, Clark & Stone, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied. See Canal Authority of the State of Florida v. J. T. Miller, Jr., et al., (Fla.App.1969), 230 So.2d 193; Canal Authority of the State of Florida v. C. S. Hayman et al., (Fla.App.1969), 230 So.2d 193; Litzel v. Canal Authority of the State of Florida, (Fla.App.1969), 230 So.2d 164; Miller v. Florida Inland Navigation District, (Fla.App.1961), 130 So.2d 615.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 11
                              AGEMARK CORPORATION

             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                                   DECEMBER 31,
                                                                             ------------------------
                                                                                2002          2001
                                                                             ----------    ----------
<S>                                                                          <C>           <C>
Common shares issued                                                          1,109,481     1,000,000

Shares cancelled, assumed abandoned                                                          54,393-

Weighted average common shares assumed outstanding for period                 1,109,481       945,607
</TABLE>

-------------------------
(1) Shares attributable to vested stock options are anti-dilutive..

                                      -16-
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 24.1

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                -----------------


The undersigned Trustee of The Town and Country Trust (the "Trust"), a Maryland
real estate investment trust, which anticipates filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C., under the provisions of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, an Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Trust's
fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, hereby constitutes and appoints HARVEY
SCHULWEIS, ALAN W. LASKER and DANIEL G. BERICK, and each of them, with full
power of substitution and resubstitution, as attorneys or attorney to sign for
the undersigned and in my name, place and stead, as Trustee of said Trust, said
Annual Report and any and all amendments and exhibits thereto, and any and all
applications and documents to be filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission pertaining to such Annual Report, with full power and authority to do
and perform any and all acts and things whatsoever requisite, necessary or
advisable to be done in the premises, as fully and for all intents and purposes
as the undersigned could do if personally present, hereby approving the acts of
said attorney, and any such substitute.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 28th day of
February, 2005.


                                             /s/ Nancy F. Lerner
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Nancy F. Lerner
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Herman I. SHELDON, Respondent.

No. 77-1100.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 21, 1978.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Basil S. Diamond, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

*722PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and ANSTEAD and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________
NO. 09

- 22

- 00242

- CV



### ________________

IN THE INTEREST OF M.E.

________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 279th District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. F- 237,814

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Mother appeals the termination of h er parental rights to her child,

M.E. 1 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001. The trial court found by clear and

convinci ng evidence that statutory grounds exist for termination and that termination

is in the best interest of the child. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E),

(F ), ( K ), ( N) , (O), (P), (2).

1 To protect the identity of the minor, we use initials to refer to the child. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2).2 Appellant ’ s court

- appointed appellate counsel submitted a bri ef in which

counsel contends there are no meritorious issues for appe al

. See Anders v.

California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re L.D.T ., 161 S.W.3d 728, 731 (Tex. App.

—
Beaumont 2005, no pet.). The brief provides counsel ’ s professional evaluation of the

record , discusses the evidence at trial and the applicable legal standard, the trial

court ’ s ruling, and why the trial court ’ s ruling is supported by sufficient evidence.

Counsel concludes there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. Counsel

certified that Appellant was served with a copy of the Anders brief. The Court

notified Mother of her right to file a pro se response and of the deadline for doing

so. Mother did not file a response with the Court.

We have independently reviewed the entire record and counsel ’ s brief, and

we conclude that there are no argua ble grounds for review, that no reversible error

exists, and that Appellant ’ s appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744

(emphasizing that the reviewing court

— and not counsel

— determines, after full

examination of proceedings, whether the appeal is wh olly frivolous). As a result, we

affirm the trial court ’ s termination of Appellant ’ s parental rights. We further find no

arguable error requiring us to order appointment of new counsel to re

- brief this

appeal. Compare Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).3 Accordingly, we affirm the trial court ’ s order terminating Appe llant’s parental

rights. 2

AFFIRMED.

________________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice

Submitted on December 28, 2022 Opinion Delivered January 12, 2023

Before Golemon , C.J., Johnson and Horton, JJ

.

2 We note that if Appellant decides to pursue review by the Supreme Court of Texas, counsel may satisfy her obligations to Appellant “by filing a pe tition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” In re P.M ., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27

- 28 (Tex. 2016).
Exhibit 99.3

                [Letterhead of Arthur Andersen LLP Appears here]

                        REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



To BANK ONE CORPORATION:

We have examined the accompanying management's assertion about Bank One, Texas,
N.A.'s (the "Servicer"), compliance with the covenants and conditions of the
Banc One Auto Grantor Trust 1997-A Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of
May 31, 1997 (the "Agreement") between the Servicer and The Bankers Trust
Company (as Trustee for the various Certificateholders and Enhancement
Providers) during the twelve months ended December 31, 1998. Management is
responsible for the Servicer's compliance with the Agreement. Our responsibility
is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the Servicer'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 Servicer's compliance with those
requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in
the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Servicer complied with the
covenants and conditions of the Agreement for the twelve months ended December
31, 1998 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

                                            /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP


Chicago, Illinois
March 23, 1999


<PAGE>


                       Assertion by Bank One, Texas, N.A.


Bank One, Texas, N.A., services the motor vehicle retail installment sale
contracts for the Banc One Auto Grantor Trust 1997-A. As of and for the year
ended December 31, 1998, Bank One, Texas, N.A. had complied, in all material
respects, with the Banc One Auto Grantor Trust 1997-A Pooling and Servicing
Agreement.




/s/ Mark Gresenz                            /s/ Tracie H. Klein
------------------------------------        ------------------------------------
Mark Gresenz                                Tracie H. Klein
Chief Financial Officer                     Vice President
Banc One Credit Company                     Bank One, Texas, N.A.
(Subsidiary of BANK ONE CORPORATION)
#### Barney GISNET v. The UNITED STATES of America.

No. 5983.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Nov. 6, 1936.

John Elliott Byrne and Lewis F. Jacobson, both of Chicago, 111., for appellant.

Michael Igoe, of Chicago, 111., for the United States.

Before EVANS and SPARKS, Circuit Judges, and BRIGGLE, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and was argued by counsel.

On consideration whereof it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court that this appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed.
```

[104th Congress Public Law 87]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ87.104]

Public Law 104-87
104th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To extend for 4 years the period of applicability of enrollment mix 
   requirement to certain health maintenance organizations providing 
 services under Dayton Area Health Plan. <<NOTE: Dec. 29, 1995 -  [H.R. 
                                1878]>> 

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

SECTION 1. EXTENDING PERIOD OF APPLICABILITY OF ENROLLMENT MIX 
            REQUIREMENT TO CERTAIN HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATIONS 
            PROVIDING SERVICES UNDER DAYTON AREA HEALTH PLAN.

    Section 2 of Public Law 102-276, as amended by section 13644 of the 
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, <<NOTE: 106 Stat. 126.>> is 
amended by striking ``December 31, 1995'' and inserting ``December 31, 
1999''.

    Approved December 29, 1995.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 1878:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 141 (1995):
            Dec. 18, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 22, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS ON PAGES
F-2 THROUGH F-4 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED JANUARY 25, 1997
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-25-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-25-1997
<CASH>                                          12,148
<SECURITIES>                                        89
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,443
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     59,503
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               103,731
<PP&E>                                         218,465
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (77,289)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 522,740
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          159,948
<BONDS>                                        295,204
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,981
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   522,740
<SALES>                                      1,020,056
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,020,056
<CGS>                                         (760,329)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 (235,032)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (23,619)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (30,182)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (29,106)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,535
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (19,571)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                        2,653
<NET-INCOME>                                   (16,918)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 12-40316 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JUAN JOSE CABRERA, JR., Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:11-CR-1108-1
Before JOLLY, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan Jose Cabrera, Jr., has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in a c c ordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Cabrera has not file d a r e s ponse. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and t h e relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate revi e w . A c c o rdingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, coun s e l i s excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Novembe r 27, 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Pur sua nt to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the cour t has det erm ined that t his op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-40316 Document: 00512064058 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/27/2012
#### Charlotte VOGEL, Appellant, v. Sam KANNER and Lena Kanner, his wife, Appellees.

No. 69-284.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Aug. 25, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 16, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal quashed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                             471
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  197,528
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               197,999
<PP&E>                                         837,764
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,206
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,024,557
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          157,869
<BONDS>                                         34,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        70,184
<OTHER-SE>                                     762,504
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,024,557
<SALES>                                        309,868
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               309,868
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               212,465
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,531
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                528,864
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            528,864
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   528,864
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>