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 Online Internet Network, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jeanette Lucas, Principal Executive Officer and Principal 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:





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.








Date: August 14, 2012

/S/ Jeanette LucasJeanette LucasPrincipal Executive Officerand Principal Financial Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 23, 2014

No. 04-14-00723-CV

THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION D.P., As a 

Mentally Ill Person,

From the Probate Court No 1, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-MH-3096

Honorable Polly Jackson Spencer, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In the interest of the efficient administration of the court’s docket, we ORDER Appeal 

Nos. 04-14-00719-CV and 04-14-00723-CV consolidated. The parties must file motions, briefs, 

and other pleadings as if the appeals were one but put both appeal numbers in the style of the 

case. However, a record must be filed in each appeal, the record in each case will remain 

separate and, if supplementation of the record becomes necessary, the supplemental material 

must be filed in the appeal to which it applies. The cases must be argued together in one brief, as 

in a single appeal, and if oral argument is requested and granted, the entire case must be argued 

as a single appeal, with the total time limit for each party equal to the ordinary time limit for a 

party in a single appeal. The court will dispose of both appeals in the same judgment, opinion, 

and mandate. 

We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on all counsel, the county 

clerk, and the court reporter. 

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 23rd day of October, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
EX-4.4



 Exhibit 4.4     

CONSENT OF BLAKE, CASSELS & GRAYDON LLP 

Dated: February 22, 2016 
 We hereby consent to
the references to our firm under the heading “Legal Matters” and our firm and opinion under the heading “Certain Canadian Federal Income Tax Considerations” in each case in the Circular that forms a part of the Registration
Statement on Form F-80 dated February 22, 2016 filed by Suncor Energy Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Act”). In giving this consent, we do not thereby admit that we come
within the category of persons whose consent is required by the Act or the rules thereunder. 
  

	
	Yours truly,
	
	   /s/ Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP

	   BLAKE, CASSELS & GRAYDON LLP
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 659 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 659

 To reauthorize the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 
                     1991, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 22, 2013

   Mr. Wyden introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To reauthorize the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 
                     1991, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF RECLAMATION STATES EMERGENCY DROUGHT RELIEF ACT 
              OF 1991.

    (a) Termination of Authority.--Section 104(c) of the Reclamation 
States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991 (43 U.S.C. 2214(c)) is 
amended by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 301 of the 
Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991 (43 U.S.C. 
2241) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``$90,000,000'' and inserting 
        ``$110,000,000''; and
            (2) by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2018''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Mark A. HOPKINSON, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Wyoming, Respondent.

No. 90-223.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

Sept. 20, 1990.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

This case came on before the court upon the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed on behalf of the Petitioner, Mark A. Hopkinson, on September 19,1990; the Motion to Dismiss Petition for Habeas Corpus Filed September 19, 1990, filed on behalf of the Respondent, the State of Wyoming, on September 19, 1990; and the arguments of counsel for the parties, and the court, having considered the file and record of the court; the authorities presented by the parties; and the argument of counsel, and being fully advised in the premises finds that:

> 1.The issue of severance of counts that is asserted by the Petitioner in the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus was addressed, given full consideration, and decided contrary to the position of the Petitioner in *Hopkinson v. State,*632 P.2d 79 (Wyo.1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 922, 102 S.Ct. 1280, 71 L.Ed.2d 463. (1982).

> 2. The doctrine of res judicata is applicable in habeas corpus proceedings. *Hopkinson v. State,*708 P.2d 46 (Wyo.1985).

> 3. Section 1-27-125, W.S.1977 provides:

> “Habeas corpus is not permissible to question the correctness of the action of a grand jury in finding a bill of indictment, or a petit jury in the trial of a cause nor of a court or judge when acting within their jurisdiction and in a lawful manner.”

> 4. The Petitioner has not demonstrated by his pleadings or his arguments that a court or judge acted without jurisdiction or in any unlawful manner in his case.

> 5. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should be denied.

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed herein on behalf of the Petitioner, Mark A. Hopkinson, on September 19, 1990, be, and it hereby is, denied.
S. Con. Res. 28 Agreed to November 22, 2013

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and thirteen 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns on any day from 

Thursday, November 21, 2013, through Friday, December 6, 2013, 

on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its 

Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned 

until 12:00 noon on Monday, December 9, 2013, or such other 

time on that day as may be specified by its Majority Leader or 

his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until the time 

of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 or section 3 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the House 

adjourns on any legislative day from Thursday, November 21, 2013, 

through Tuesday, November 26, 2013, on a motion offered pursuant 

to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, 

it stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on Monday, December 2, 2013, 

or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this 

concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first. 

SEC. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker 

of the House, or their respective designees, acting jointly after 

consultation with the Minority Leader of the Senate and the 

Minority Leader of the House, shall notify the Members of the 

Senate and House, respectively, to reassemble at such place and 

time as they may designate if, in their opinion, the public interest 

shall warrant it. 

SEC. 3. After the House reassembles pursuant to the first 

section of this concurrent resolution, the Majority Leader of the 

Senate after consultation with the Minority Leader of the Senate, 
S. Con. Res. 28—2 

shall notify the Members of the Senate to reassemble whenever, 

in his opinion, the public interest shall warrant it. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Section 1350 Certifications



I am the Principal Executive Officer
of Ameritek Ventures, a Nevada corporation (the “Company”). I am delivering this certificate in connection with the
Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended August 31, 2017 and filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“Form
10-Q”).



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Ameritek Ventures (the “Company”)
certifies to his knowledge that:



|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                        
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Annual Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2017 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 that Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company.                                              



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ Clinton L. Stokes III  
|Clinton L. Stokes III      
|Principal Executive Officer
|                           
|Date:  October 24, 2017    
|
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7183

JAMES A. COCHRAN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief

District Judge. (CA-02-1415-AM)

Submitted: February 27, 2004 Decided: March 24, 2004

Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James A. Cochran, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

James A. Cochran seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

§ 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683

(4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Cochran has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (1.81 MB)

Tags:DLA Distribution, Defense Logistics Agency Distribution, DLA Distribution Oklahoma City, Outstanding DoD Employee with a Disability Award, dla, Oklahoma city, Defense Logistics Agency

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 20143 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Steven Lee Smith,**
Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:19

- CR

- 497

- 1

Before **Jolly, Elrod,** and **Graves,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Steven Lee Smith, who entered a conditional guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence that was derived from the traffic stop that led to his arrest. He argues that t he red LED ground effect lighting on the

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 14, 2021 Lyle W. Cayc e Clerk Case: 20-20143 Document: 00515822356 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2021No. 20

- 20143

2 underbody of his motorcycle did not violate Texas Transportation Code § 547.306(b) ; that the stop of his motorcycle for violating that statute was therefore unlawful ; and that, even if the trooper who made the stop mistakenly believed that Smith violated the statute , the trooper’s reading of the statute was not objectively reasonable. When reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress, we review factual findings for clear error and consider conclusions of law de novo. United States v. Garcia

- Lopez , 809 F.3d 834, 838 (5th Cir. 2016). Generally, the Fourth Amendment requires warrants to search or seize individuals ; however, a well

- established exception to that rule is the Terry stop

. See Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 28

- 31 (1968) . Under Terry , police officers can briefly detain individuals if they reasonably suspect criminal activity is afoot. Id . at 30. R easonable suspicion can rest on a mistaken understanding of the law if the mistake is objectively re asonable. Heien v. North Carolina , 574 U.S. 54,
60

- 61 , 6 8 (2014).

The Texas Transportation Code § 547.306 provides that a “person may operate a motorcycle or moped equipped with LED ground effect lighting that emits a non

- flashing amber or white light.” **Tex. Transp. Code**  **Ann.** § 547.30 6(b). We need not address whether Smith actually violated th e statute because we agree with the district court that, even if the trooper had a mistaken understanding of the statute, his reading of the statute as prohibiting red LED ground effect lighting, was nevertheless objectively reasonable. Se e Heien , 574 U.S. at 60

- 61, 68; United States v. Alvarado

- Zarza , 782 F.3d 246, 248

- 50 (5th Cir. 2015)

. Accordingly, the district court properly denied Smith’s motion to suppress. See Heien , 574 U.S. at 68. T he district court’s judgment is **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 20-20143 Document: 00515822356 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/14/2021
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

WILLIAM BRENNAN,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 655 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

WILLIAM BRENNAN,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 656 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 2nd day of June, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Blue Wolf Mongolia Holdings Corp. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended May 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Paul Nicholas Edwards, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.





Dated: August 26, 2011
/s/Paul Nicholas EdwardsPaul Nicholas Edwards

President and Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





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 of TP Flexible Income Fund, Inc. (the “Company”) for the three months ended  September 30, 2019 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, M. Grier Eliasek, 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 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, as amended; and

|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.




/s/ M. Grier Eliasek


M. Grier Eliasek


Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive Officer)


Date: November 13, 2019
#### C. O. CARPENTER, Receiver, etc., Appellants, v. Byrd DOUGLAS, Appellee.

No. 8150.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 15, 1940.

Bass, Berry & Sims, of Nashville, Tenn., and Fowler & Fowler, of Knoxville, Tenn., for appellants.

Douglas & Douglas, of Nashville, Tenn., for appellee.

Before SIMONS, ALLEN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In an appeal from an order fixing compensation of a Standing Master, and the court upon consideration of the briefs and arguments not being persuaded that there was an abuse of discretion in the fixing of such compensation, it is hereby ordered that the judgment below be and it is hereby affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         112,092
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  162,110
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (7,684)
<INVENTORY>                                    259,139
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               580,798
<PP&E>                                       1,001,227
<DEPRECIATION>                               (390,733)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,300,621
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          271,305
<BONDS>                                        430,820
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           18,447
<PREFERRED>                                         74
<COMMON>                                           426
<OTHER-SE>                                     148,704
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,300,621
<SALES>                                      1,383,301
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,383,301
<CGS>                                        1,282,923
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,397,003
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,805)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              44,366
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (55,263)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (10,776)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (44,487)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (5,431)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (49,918)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.18)
        

</TABLE>