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

 

**CERTIFICATION OF**

**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**OF ANTERO RESOURCES FINANCE CORPORATION**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Antero Resources Finance Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2010, I, Paul M. Rady, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Antero Resources Finance Corporation, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       This Annual Report Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 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 this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Antero Resources LLC for the periods presented therein.

 
| Date: March 30, 2011                             |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                                                  |   |   |
|                                                  |   |   |
| /s/ Paul M. Rady                                      |   |   |
| Paul M. Rady                                          |   |   |
| *Chairman   of the Board and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-11326 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MARK LINNEAR HAYS, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:95-CR-141-D

- - - - - - - - - - April 16, 1999 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Mark Linnear Hays appeals his convictions and sentences for conspiracy, obstructing commerce by robbery, using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, and possession of a firearm by a felon. We GRANT Hays’ motion to file his reply brief in its present form. Hays’ motions for reimbursement of costs, return of property, and supplementation of the record are DENIED.No. 96-11326 -2-

** 378 U.S. 368, 395-96 (1964). Hays argues that the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), is unconstitutional as applied to his offense; that Counts 1 and 2 of the indictment are defective; that identification evidence was tainted by an impermissibly suggestive photographic array; that evidence seized from a hotel room and Hays’ truck should have been suppressed; that the Government presented perjured testimony; that the district court admitted extraneous prejudicial evidence; that a jury instruction was plain error; that the jury was tainted by exposure to midtrial publicity; that his sentence should not have been enhanced pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c); and that trial counsel was ineffective for “threatening” Hays to accept a plea bargain, disagreeing with Hays over defense strategy, moving for appointment of cocounsel, failing to call witnesses, failing to request a Jackson v.
Denno ** hearing with regard to the testimony of Hays’ accomplice, inadequately cross-examining the Government’s expert witnesses and failing to offer expert testimony on Hays’ behalf, failing to offer Hays’ medical records into evidence, and stipulating that Hays had a prior conviction. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and find no error. Consequently, we AFFIRM.
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO FILE REPLY BRIEF IN PRESENT FORM GRANTED; MOTIONS FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS, RETURN OF PROPERTY, AND TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD DENIED.
EXHIBIT 21
 Subsidiaries of Registrant
 State of
    
    PercentageCompany Name
    
    Incorporation
    
    OwnershipCICA Life Insurance Company of America
(CICA)
    
    Colorado
    
    100% DirectCitizens National Life Insurance Company
(CNLIC)
    
    Texas
    
    100% IndirectComputing Technology, Inc.
(CTI)
    
    Colorado
    
    100% IndirectFuneral Homes of America, Inc. (FHA)
    
    Louisiana
    
    100% IndirectInsurance Investors, Inc. (III)
    
    Texas
    
    100% IndirectIntegrity Capital Corporation (ICC)
    
    Indiana
    
    100% DirectIntegrity Capital Insurance Company (ICIC)
    
    Indiana
    
    100% IndirectOzark National Life Insurance Company
(ONLIC)
    
    Arkansas
    
    100% DirectSecurity Plan Life Insurance Company
(SPLIC)
    
    Louisiana
    
    100% IndirectSecurity Plan Fire Insurance Company
(SPFIC)
    
    Louisiana
    
    100% Indirect
  35
#### Ernest Lee SIMMONS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1044.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 21, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### AMERICAN LAMINATING MFG. CO., Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael C. ATTAWAY et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 3050.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

March 26, 1970.

Steve Montgomery, Harry Faircloth, in pro. per.

Mouton, Champagne & Colomb, by Wel-ton P. Mouton, Sr., Lafayette, for defendants-appellees.

Before FRUGÉ, HOOD, and MILLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant did not appear in person or through counsel when this case was called for argument on the date it had been docketed for hearing, and no brief was filed in his behalf. The appeal, therefore, is considered abandoned, and accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed. Beaver v. Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, 218 So.2d 677 (La.App.3d Cir. 1969). Rule VII, Section 5(b), Uniform Rules of the Courts of Appeal (1963), 8 LSA-R.S. page 392.

The costs of this appeal are assessed to plaintiff-appellant.

Appeal dismissed.
AN OVERVIEW OF

Tribal Governments’ HAF Plan 

Submission 

September 2022
2

Disclaimer

This presentation is designed to give an overview of the 

Homeowner Assistance Fund (HAF) plan submission process 

under the HAF program for educational purposes. It should not 

be construed as legal advice or a statement of binding policy 

guidance from the Treasury. 

For official Treasury guidance, go to: www.Treasury.gov/HAF
3

Before You Start

• Review the Following Documents:

– Sample HAF Plan

– Sample Term Sheet 

– Guidance
4

HAF Plan
5

HAF Sample Term Sheet
6

HAF Guidance
7

Prepare in Advance

• Homeowner Needs and Community 

Engagement

• Program Design

• Performance Goals

• Readiness

• Budget
8

Quantitative Data
9

Input
10

Helping Homeowners: Qualified Expenses
11

Helping Homeowners: Qualified Expenses 

Eligible expenses may vary depending on the HAF participant’s plan.

In general, HAF funds may be used for the following: 

• Reinstatement, Payments, Principal Reduction, Interest Rate Mortgage Assistance Reductions 

• Delinquent property Taxes, Utilities, Internet, Homeowner’s 

insurance, HOA/COA fees, and on existing down payment assistance 

loans

Other payment 

assistance 

• For example: repairs to maintain a home’s habitability or assistance 

to enable households to obtain clear title to their properties.

Other measures to 

prevent displacement

• Up to 5% of HAF funding for counseling, educational efforts or legal 

services related to foreclosure prevention or displacement.

HAF Counseling/

Legal Services 
12

Term Sheets
13

Documenting Homeowner Income
14

Outreach
15

Performance Goals
16

Readiness
17

Budget
18

Key Reminders

• Administrative expenses, and other expenses related to 

planning, needs assessment, and community 

engagement must not be more than 15% of the total 

amount of the HAF award.

• If you are not requesting funds for administrative 

expenses, be sure to indicate how your HAF operations 

will be funded. 

• HAF funds can be used for members and individuals who 

reside outside the Tribal Government’s territorial 

homeland, as long as it is consistent with the Tribe’s 

constitution and governing law.

• Include a Term Sheet for each Program Element which 

includes a maximum assistance amount.
19

Reporting
20

Tips for Submitting Your HAF Plan

• The amount requested should equal 

amount allocated

• Accessing Treasury’s Portal requires 

ID.ME

• Only the authorized user can submit a 

HAF Plan 

• Click “save” when you’ve completed 

each section then click “next” to move 

forward to the next section
21

Thank you.

Questions?

Please contact the HAF Program Team at 

haf_tribal@treasury.gov

For More Information: 

Please visit Treasury’s HAF website at 

www.Treasury.gov/HAF
22

HUD Income Limit Tool
257 La. 607

#### Sidney TRAHAN v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 51075.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 4, 1971.

In re: Sidney Trahan applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Cameron. 241 So.2d 609.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, the result is correct.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp el l ant . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. C A R L O S P E R E Z - L O P E Z , a . k. a . J or ge L o p ez, a. k . a. G i l b ert o S al as, D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 11- 50206 D. C. No . 3 : 1 0 - c r - 0 4 9 9 9 - BE N ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia R oge rT . B e ni t e z , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r19, 2011 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dM cK E O W N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C a r l os P e r e z - L ope z appe a l s f r om the 18- m onth s e nt e nc e i m pos e d f ol l ow i ng hi s c onvi c t i on f

orbe i ng ade port e d a l i e n f ound i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s , i n vi ol a t i on of 8 U . S. C. § 1 3 2 6 . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED DE C 22 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 50206 2 P e r e z - L ope z c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtpr oc e dur a l l ye rr e d by : ( 1) f a i l i ng to u s e th e G u id e lin e s a s as tartin g p o in t in th e s e n te n c in g p r o c e s s ; ( 2 ) f a ilin g to pr ovi de an a de qua t e e xpl ana t i on f orthe s e nt e nc e ; a nd ( 3) f oc us i ng e xc l us i ve l yon th e n e e dto p r o te c t th e p ub lic . T h is c o n te n tio n la c k s m e r it a s th e r e c o r dr e f le c ts tha tthe c ourtus e d the G ui de l i ne s r ange a s the s t art i ng poi nti n the s e nt e nc i ng proces s, adequat el y e xp l ai ned the se nt ence , and con si dere d the 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) s e n te n c in g f

a c to r s . Se e U

n ite d Sta tes v . Ca r ty , 520 F . 3d 984, 991 ( 9th C i r . 2008) (e n b anc) . P er ez -L op ez al so cont ends thatthe abov e- G ui del i nes s ent ence w as s ub s tan tiv e lyu n r e a s o n ab le . T h e r e c o r dr e f le c ts th a t th e 1 8 - m o n th s e n te n c e is s ubs t a nt i ve l yr e a s onabl e i n l i ghtof the t ot a l i tyof

the c i r c um s t anc e s a nd the s e c t i on 3 5 5 3 ( a ) s e n te n c in g f

a c to r s . See G al l

v. U ni ted States , 55 2 U . S . 38 , 51 (200 7). AF F I RME D.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Michael Mathews, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Aspen Group, Inc.; and



2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.





Date: August 29, 2016



|                                                                     
|---------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                     
|/s/ Michael Mathews                                                  
|Michael Mathews
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
* 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

October 21, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-10312

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

YOUA LOR YANG,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:02-CR-198-ALL-A

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Youa Lor Yang (“Yang”) appeals his guilty-plea conviction

for importing opium into the United States. For the first time

on appeal, Yang argues that his counsel was ineffective for not

filing a motion to suppress, not arguing in support of his motion

for downward departure at sentencing, and not arguing that the

Government should have filed a motion for downward departure

based upon his substantial assistance.
No. 03-10312

-2-

Because Yang did not raise his claims in the district court,

there is no evidentiary record on these issues. Consequently,

the record has not been developed sufficiently for us to consider

Yang’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal. 

See United States v. Maria-Martinez, 143 F.3d 914, 916 (5th Cir.

1998). Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED

without prejudice to Yang’s right to raise his ineffective

assistance of counsel claims in a motion to vacate, set aside, or

correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We express no

view on the merits of such a motion.
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. ESCAMBIA COUNTY, Petitioner, v. Jack BEHR, in his official capacity as Public Defender for the First Judicial Circuit of Florida, Respondent.

No. GG-204.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 9, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 24, 1978.

*975John W. Fleming, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Joseph W. Lawrence, II, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

ERVIN, Judge.

The Public Defender for the First Judicial Circuit of Florida, in. six non-capital felony cases, filed motions to withdraw, citing excessive caseload and his inability to render effective representation on behalf of the defendants. Petitioner sought writ of mandamus to compel the Public Defender to represent the defendants in the six eases. The writ was denied, and the motions to withdraw were granted. Petitioner now seeks writ of certiorari before this court, contending the Public Defender may not shirk his statutory duties by withdrawing as counsel.

Section 27.51(1), Florida Statutes (1975), requiring “. . . the public defender . . . represent, without additional compensation as provided in S. 925.-035, any person who is deemed to be insolvent, as provided in this act, who is under arrest for, or is charged with, a felony must be read in pari materia with other relevant statutes and standards. Section 27.53(2) allows the trial court the discretion to appoint as special assistant public defender any member of the Bar to represent insolvent defendants. Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides generally that a lawyer should represent a client competently. The corresponding disciplinary rule, 6-101, requires “a lawyer shall not . . . handle a legal matter without preparation adequate in the circumstances.” Ethical Consideration 2-30 provides, “Employment shall not be accepted by a lawyer when he is unable to render competent service. . . . ”

The record on appeal reveals the caseload of the Public Defender’s office far exceeds the workloads recommended by three commissions — The National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, and the Florida Governor’s Commission. See, for example, Florida’s Criminal Justice Standards & Goals: Final Report, 392-3 (1976). Moreover, the trial judge has the opportunity to observe directly the adequacy of representation by the public defender’s office and to deter*976mine whether the workload is excessive. Section 27.51 cannot be construed mechanically, in all circumstances, to mandate the appointment of the public defender if so doing would compromise the effectiveness of his representation. Both ethical considerations and professional standards dictate otherwise.

The writ is DENIED.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.
#### Jerry BAUMANN and A. A. Rosen, Appellants, v. Bernard SCHONINGER, Appellee.

No. 71-199.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 16, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Arthur J. Franza, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 32.4

﻿

﻿

CERTIFICATION OF THE 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of SB/RH Holdings, LLC (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas L. Martin, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

﻿

|  | 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/ DOUGLAS L. MARTIN |
| Name:        | Douglas L. Martin          |
| Title:       | Chief Financial Officer    |
| Date:        | November 16, 2017     |

﻿

﻿

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to liability under that section. This certification shall not be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act or Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

﻿

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 required by Section 906, 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.

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

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.

March 6, 2015

jam 

# Order

Clerk March 6, 2015

1 51156 ( 41 )

In re STOKES

__________________________________ CARY LEE STOKES

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 1 51146

COA: 322479

SAGINAW CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

,

Defendant

- Appellee.

___________________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be

liable for filing fees.

Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall p ay to the

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $ 15 .00, shall submit a copy of this order

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result i n the appeal not being

filed in this Court.

If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of

$36 0 .00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in civil

actions in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full.

Th e Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.
Exhibit 99

CONSOLIDATED NATURAL GAS COMPANY
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED EARNINGS STATEMENT
(Unaudited)



|                             | Twelve Months
EndedJune 30, 2005
|---------------------------- | --------------------------------
|                             | (millions)                      
|Operating Revenue            | $7,127                          
|                             |                                 
|Operating Expenses           | 5,545                           
|                             |                                 
|Income from operations       | 1,582                           
|                             |                                 
|Other income (loss)          | 27                              
|                             |                                 
|Interest and related charges | 194                             
|                             |                                 
|Income before income taxes   | 1,415                           
|                             |                                 
|Income taxes                 | 503                             
|                             |                                 
|Net income                   | $   912