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





CERTIFICATION OF THE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Report on Form 10-Q of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle (“Seattle Bank”) for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard M. Riccobono, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 Seattle Bank.








Date:  August 10, 2010





Federal Home Loan Bank of SeattleBy:/s/ Richard M. RiccobonoRichard M. RiccobonoPresident and Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 42 (Friday, March 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 12868]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5117]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection


Approval of Saybolt LP, as a Commercial Gauger

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice of approval of Saybolt LP, as a commercial gauger.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, 
Saybolt LP, 905C Eastern Blvd., Clarksville, IN 47129, has been 
approved to gauge petroleum, petroleum products, organic chemicals and 
vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions 
of 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct 
gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the 
entity that it is approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to 
conduct the specific gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries 
regarding the specific gauger service this entity is approved to 
perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by 
calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0b68697b25676a69637a4b6f6378256c647d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="335051431d5f52515b4273575b401d545c45">[email protected]</span></a>. Please reference the Web site listed below for a 
complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories.

http://cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/operations_support/labs_scientific_svcs/commercial_gaugers/

DATES: The approval of Saybolt LP, as commercial gauger became 
effective on August 16, 2011. The next triennial inspection date will 
be scheduled for August 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Mocella, Laboratories and 
Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-
1060.

    Dated: February 22, 2012.
Ira S. Reese,
Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.
[FR Doc. 2012-5117 Filed 3-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 41 (Thursday, March 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 12599]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4881]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Nursing Research; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Nursing Research 
Special Emphasis Panel; Loan Repayment.
    Date: March 30, 2012.
    Time: 12 p.m. to 1 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, 6701 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Mario Rinaudo, M.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Office of Review, National Inst of Nursing Research, National 
Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd. (DEM 1), Suite 710, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-5973, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#08657a6166697d6c67486569616426666160266f677e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aac7d8c3c4cbdfcec5eac7cbc3c684c4c3c284cdc5dc">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.361, 
Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 22, 2012.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-4881 Filed 2-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT
32


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 Chartwell International Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), we, Imre Eszenyi, Acting
President, Acting Chief Financial Officer and Chairman of the Board of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of our 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.





Dated:
      March 15, 2010
              /s/ Imre EszenyiImre
      EszenyiActing
      President, Acting Chief Financial Officer and
                Chairman
      of the Board
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT

SERGEI KOVALEV,

Petitioner

v.

BOARD OF REVISION OF TAXES CITY OF PHILADELPHIA,
Respondent : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 4 E AL 2020

Petition for Allowance of A ppeal from t he Unpublished Order o f the Superior Court at No

. 2899 E DA 2019 e ntered o n De cembe r 3
, 2019, quashing the O rder o f the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas at No. 190801136 entered on September 23, 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 8 th day of July, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, and the order of the Superior Court is VACATED. See Grant v. Blaine , 868 A.2d 400, 402 (Pa. 2005) (holding that “an order denying in forma pauperis status is a final, appealable order”). The matter is REMA NDED to the Superior Court for consideration of the propriety and advisability of a transfer of the appeal to the
Commonwealth Court, see 42 Pa.C.S. §704(a), as well as further proceedings, in one of those courts, on the underlying appeal. The Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is GRANTED, limited to the filing of the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

.
WESTERN AIRWAYS, INC 

200 Jim Davidson Dr., Sugar Land. Tx 77478 

Ph: 281-565-9700 Fx: 281-565-9777 

Michael A. Doerge 

Chief Pilot 

Cell: 832-250-2113 

Email: mike.doerge@flywesternainA'ays.com 

November 25, 2014 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building ground floor. 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Extension of Docket No: FAA-2012-0747 

Dear Sir: 

We would like to request the extension of: 

Exemption No. 10731, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0747. 

Exemption No: 10731 from 14 CFR (FAR Section) - Part 91.203 (a)(b); 61.3 

which is currently scheduled to expire on 3/31/2015. 

This Exemption was through Brian Byers our Director of Compliance who is no longer with the 

company. 

Please call if you should have any questions. 

Thank you, 

Michael Doerge 

Chief Pilot
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41689

Summary Calendar

EDGAR ALEXANDER HERRERA-VILLATORO

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

WARDEN JOE D. DRIVER

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:06-CV-30

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Edgar Alexander Herrera-Villatoro (“Herrera”), federal inmate # 97107-

079, appeals the dismissal without prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for

failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Herrera challenged the starting

date of his federal sentence for illegal reentry and argued that he should have

received credit for the Texas state sentence he served after the state revoked his

deferred-adjudication probation.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 12, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-41689

2

Before filing the instant action, Herrera did not complete the final step of

the administrative process provided by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The

Central Office ofthe Bureau of Prisons twice rejected his appeal, finding thatthe

first appeal was untimely and the second appeal did not include the correct

number of copies or a copy of the Institution Administrative Remedy Request

Form or warden’s response. Herrera therefore failed to exhaust properly his

available administrative remedies. See Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2386-

87 (2006) (holding that habeas exhaustion requires proper exhaustion of the

administrative process). Consequently, the district court did not abuse its

discretion by dismissing the action without prejudice to Herrera’s return to

federal court once his administrative remedies are fully exhausted. See Fuller

v. Rich, 11 F.3d 61, 62 (5th Cir. 1994). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
# IN THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT

STANSBERRY, Bruce, *et al*.,)  Supreme Court

appellants,)  cause no. 48S02-0206-CV-347

v.)

)  Court of Appeals cause no. 48A02-0104-CV-241

HOWARD, Wendy,)   

appellee.)  Trial court cause no. 48C01-0008-MI-590

# PUBLISHED ORDER

On June 20, 2002, the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer of jurisdiction over this appeal, thus vacating the opinion of the Court of Appeals reported as *Stansberry v. Howard*, 758 N.E.2d 540 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).  *See* Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A).  The case involves the propriety of the Madison County Office of Family and Children’s decision to deny the appellee’s application for a home child care license.

While the matter was pending before the Court, counsel for the appellee filed a “Report To The Court” indicating that due to subsequent events, the appellee was no longer eligible for a home child care license and that she no longer wished to pursue this matter.  Counsel suggested the appeal had become moot.  

The Indiana Attorney General, as counsel for appellants, then filed “Appellants’ Response To Appellee’s Report To The Court.”  The Attorney General agreed that the outcome of the case was no longer relevant to the parties, and further noted that Ind. Code § 12-17.2-5-4 was amended effective July 1, 2002, in a manner that would likely have been dispositive of the case in the first instance.  *See* P.L. 109-2002 § 11.      

When an appeal becomes moot, it usually is dismissed unless the appellate court determines that the case involves questions of great public interest.  *See In Re Lawrence*, 579 N.E.2d 32, 37 (Ind. 1991).  The legal issues in this appeal were initially of some public interest.  However, not only have subsequent events eliminated any controversy between the parties, the General Assembly’s statutory amendments have diminished the significance of the legal issues initially at stake.  Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as moot.  The opinion of the Court of Appeals remains vacated.  

Done at Indianapolis, Indiana this 1st day of October, 2002.

/s/Randall T. Shepard

Chief Justice of Indiana

All Justices concur.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED APRIL 28, 2022

NO. 03-21-00592-CV

Crestway Drive Land, LLC, Appellant

v.

Rice Capital, LLC Series 21, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND TRIANA

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on March 31, 2021. Crestway 

Drive Land, LLC has filed an agreed joint motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered

the motion, the Court agrees that the motion should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the

motion and dismisses the appeal. Each party shall bear their own costs relating to this appeal, 

both in this Court and in the court below.
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**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 Chartwell International Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended April 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), we, Imre Eszenyi, Acting President and Chairman of the Board and Paul Biberkraut, Chief Financial and Administrative Officer, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of our 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.

 

June 6, 2006

 
|   |  |
|--------|--|

 

 

/s/ Imre Eszenyi

Imre Eszenyi

Acting President and Chairman of the Board 

(Principal Executive Officer)
|   |  |
|--------|--|

 

 

/s/ Paul Biberkraut

Paul Biberkraut

Chief Financial and Administrative Officer 

(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
Exhibit 13



THE BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI UFJ, LTD.



CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY

RULE
13a14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)

AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Annual Report of The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Nobuo Kuroyanagi, President (principal executive officer) of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 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/    NOBUO KUROYANAGIName: Nobuo Kuroyanagi Title:  
President (Principal executive officer)




Dated: February 28, 2006



---

THE BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI UFJ, LTD.



CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY

RULE 13a14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)

AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Annual
Report of The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Nobuyuki
Hirano, Managing Director (principal financial officer) of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 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/    NOBUYUKI HIRANOName: Nobuyuki Hirano Title:   Managing
Director (Principal financial officer)




Dated: February 28, 2006
* 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 12, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41290 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MICHAEL WAYNE CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CR-27

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Michael Wayne Campbell appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for mailing threatening communications to a United States judge, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876(c). Campbell argues that the district court violated the principles of United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), by making findings at sentencing based on a preponderance of the evidence that increased his guideline range. The district court was entitled to find by a preponderance of the evidence all facts necessary to calculate the guideline range, and there was no SixthNo. 05-41290 -2- Amendment error. See United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 793, 798 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 2884 (2006); United States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). Campbell also argues that the district court erroneously

calculated his criminal history points and criminal history category because it failed to treat a prior conviction for escape and a prior conviction for aggravated robbery as related. He argues that the offenses occurred on the same day and that he was sentenced to concurrent terms in the same proceeding. Campbell has failed to show that these offenses were consolidated in state court

or that the offenses had a close factual relationship, and the district court did not err. See United States v. Bryant , 991 F.2d 171, 177-78 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Ainsworth, 932 F.2d 358, 361 (5th Cir. 1991); U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, comment. (n.3). We also note that Campbell’s criminal history category would have been the same even if the offenses had been considered related because the district court determined Campbell was a career offender. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b). Finally, Campbell argues that the district court erroneously denied him a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Approximately two weeks after pleading guilty to threatening a United States District Court judge, Campbell sent another threatening letter to the judge. The district court’s conclusion that Campbell failed to show a withdrawal from criminal conduct wasNo. 05-41290 -3- not without foundation. See United States v. Franks , 46 F.3d 402, 406 (5th Cir. 1995). AFFIRMED.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-1181

___________________________

Joel Gomez Andrade

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

Matthew G. Whitaker, Acting Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

Submitted: November 1, 2018

Filed: November 21, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Mexican citizen Joel Gomez Andrade petitions for review of an order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the decision of an

immigration judge, which denied him withholding of removal.

1

1The denial of asylum and relief under the Convention Against Torture are not

before the panel. See Chay-Velasquez v. Holder, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004)
Upon review, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the denial of

withholding ofremoval because Gomez Andrade did not show a clear probability that

his life or freedom would be threatened on account of membership in a particular

social group, political opinion, or any other protected ground should he be returned

to Mexico. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (listing protected grounds); Malonga v.

Holder, 621 F.3d 757, 764 (8th Cir. 2010) (placing the burden of proof in the

withholding context on the applicant). Further, the record does not demonstrate that

the Mexican government was unable or unwilling to control the harm Gomez

Andrade alleges. See Menjivar v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 918, 921 (8th Cir. 2005)

(requiring that the government was “unable or unwilling to control” the harm

inflicted). Finally, in light of the fact that Gomez Andrade’s family continues to

reside in Mexico unharmed, he did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that he

could not safely relocate within Mexico. See Krasnopivtsev v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d

832, 839 (8th Cir. 2004) (“The reasonableness of a fear of persecution is diminished

when family members remain in the native country unharmed, and the applicant

himself had not been singled out for abuse.”). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir.

R. 47B.

______________________________

(claim is waived on appeal where it is not meaningfully argued in opening brief).

-2-