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

**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**SECTION      1350 CERTIFICATION**

**OF      THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

|   | (1)    | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended                September 30, 2007 (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.                                                                                                                     |

| /S/                GENE                E. BURLESON |
|----------------------------------------------------|
|                                               | Gene                E. Burleson |
|                                               | Chief                Executive Officer |
#### In the Matter of Tyrone C., Also Known as Tyrone L., Appellant.

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Westchester County (Scancarelli, J.), entered November 6, 1989, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, entered September 29, 1989, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him in the custody of the Westchester County Department of Social Services for a period of 18 months.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

On August 9, 1989, members of the Peekskill Police Department were dispatched to Lepore Park in response to a report concerning a man with a gun. After being informed by several bystanders that the perpetrator was entering a car, two officers observed the appellant entering the back seat of a *614vehicle and leaning forward as if to hide something. The officers proceeded to the vehicle, ordered all occupants to exit and found a handgun on the floor behind the front passenger seat.

En route to the police station, the appellant spontaneously revealed to one of the officers that he had the gun but that he "wasn’t going to use it”. The presentment agency afforded the appellant timely notice of its intent to introduce this statement at the hearing. It was not until the close of the presentment agency’s case that the Law Guardian, for the first time, moved to suppress the statement. The Family Court denied the motion to suppress as untimely.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620; *Matter of Jamal V.,*159 AD2d 507), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]). Under the circumstances, it was rational for the court to infer that the appellant had both the ability and intent to exercise dominion and control over the weapon *(see, People v Chamblin,*146 AD2d 707; *People v Davis,*104 AD2d 1046, 1047, *rearg granted & determination adhered to*117 AD2d 817). The court also properly denied as untimely the appellant’s motion to suppress his statement whereby he admitted possessing the gun *(see,*Family Ct Act § 332.2 [1]; *People v Franklin,*127 AD2d 685). Kunzeman, J. P., Balletta, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
#### Debra Gene CARPENTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. 0-84-605.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Aug. 19, 1986.

*256Thomas Purcell, Asst. Appellate Public Defender, Norman, Oklahoma, for appellant.

Michael C. Turpén, Atty. Gen., Tomilou Gentry Liddell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Deputy Chief, Criminal Div., Gary W. Searcy, Legal Intern, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for appellee.

OPINION

BRETT, Judge:

Appellant, Debra Gene Carpenter, pled guilty in Comanche County Case No. CRF-83-122 to Larceny of a Credit Card, Count I and Obtaining Property with a Credit Card Without the Consent of the Credit Card Holder, Count II. She was given a three year suspended sentence and a $500 fine on Count I and a three year suspended sentence on Count II to run concurrently. Appellant’s sentences have been revoked and she appeals.

The State filed a motion to revoke these sentences alleging appellant had committed a felony while on probation. Appellant was charged with Grand Larceny in Comanche County Case No. CRF-83-744. It was alleged she had stolen $700 from a 79 year old woman while she was in the woman’s home. At an in-court preliminary hearing lineup, the prosecuting witness, J.W., not only failed to identify appellant but she picked out the wrong person. The victim’s identification and testimony was the only evidence of the crime. Appellant’s demurrer to the evidence at the close of the preliminary hearing was sustained.

At the revocation hearing, which was held before the preliminary hearing in Case No. CRF-83-744, the State called J.W. and a policeman as witnesses. J.W. had initially picked appellant from a photo lineup and the policeman was the officer that handled the identification. J.W. claimed she did not initial the photo selected but the officer testified they both marked the picture. At the revocation hearing she identified appellant by saying “Well, I guess it’s her; looks like her so I guess it would be.” The revocation hearing was continued for 2 months, and was finally concluded two weeks after the demurrer was sustained in Case No. CRF-83-744. Appellant moved the revocation be dismissed. The court, however, denied the motion and without further explanation revoked appellant’s suspended sentence.

Appellant’s first proposition of error is a claim the State failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence she breached the conditions of her probation by the commission of a felony. In reviewing the transcripts from the hearings held in both cases, we find the failure of J.W. to identify appellant is a failure of the State to prove by a preponderance of the evidence appellant committed a felony. *Caudill v. State,*637 P.2d 1264 (Okl.Cr.1981). It was an abuse of discretion for the court to revoke appellant’s suspended sentence. *See Cooper v. State,*599 P.2d 419, 423 (Okl.Cr.1979).

The other issues raised in appellant’s brief are moot in light of the conclusion reached in the first proposition. We therefore REVERSE the revocation of appellant’s suspended sentence.

PARKS, P.J. concurs.

BUSSEY, J., dissents.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDRES GONZALEZ; APOLONIA

GONZALEZ,

Petitioners,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 71352

Agency Nos. A079

- 533

- 624

A070

- 722

- 166

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 15 , 2019 **

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON , Circuit Judges.

Andres Gonzalez and Apolonia Gonzalez, natives and citizens of Mexico,

petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying

their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review for ab use of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

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

# FILED

OCT 21 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 71352

review de novo questions of law. Bonilla v. Lynch , 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir.

2016). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not err by not addressing petitioners’ request for equitable

tolling of the time and number limitations

. Petitioners’ request was not based on a

recognized ground for tolling

, such as fraud, deception, or error. See id. at 582

( time and numerical deadlines may be equitably tolled during periods when a

petitioner is preve nted from filing because of “deception, fraud, or error ”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION





Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





(Subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code)





Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Platinum Energy Resources, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge,
that:





The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2010 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.





Date: November
      15, 2010
                  /s/ Al RahmaniAl
      RahmaniChief
      Executive Officer





A signed
original 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.
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James B. Hersch, 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) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Century Petroleum
      Corp. for the quarter ended January 31, 2009 (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 Century Petroleum Corp.                                                                    

Dated: March 23, 2009

*/s/ James B. Hersch*
James B. Hersch President and Director (Principal Executive Officer)
Century Petroleum Corp.

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 Century
Petroleum Corp. and will be retained by Century Petroleum Corp. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13351-13352]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5394]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-74,336]


Polaris Industries, Including On-site Leased Workers From 
Westaff, Supply Technologies, Aerotek Securitas Security Services, Volt 
Workforce Solutions and Select Staffing, Osceola, WI; Amended 
Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment 
Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended 
(``Act''), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a 
Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance 
on August 26, 2010, applicable to workers of Polaris Industries, 
including on-site leased workers from Westaff, Osceola, Wisconsin. The 
notice was published in the Federal Register on September 15, 2010 (75 
FR 56143). The notice was amended on December 6, 2010, January 21, 2011 
and April 12, 2011 to include

[[Page 13352]]

on-site leased workers from Supply Technologies, Aerotek Securitas 
Security Services and Volt Workforce Solutions. The notices were 
published in the Federal Register on December 13, 2010 (75 FR 77666), 
February 2, 2011 (76 FR 5833) and April 22, 2011 (76 FR 22729).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged 
in activities related to the production of components for recreational 
vehicles.
    The company reports that workers leased from Select Staffing were 
employed on-site at the Osceola, Wisconsin location of Polaris 
Industries. The Department has determined that these workers were 
sufficiently under the control of Polaris Industries to be considered 
leased workers.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending this 
certification to include workers leased from Select Staffing working 
on-site at the Osceola, Wisconsin location of Polaris Industries.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-74,336 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Polaris Industries, including on-site leased 
workers from Westaff, Supply Technologies, Aerotek, Securitas 
Security Services, Volt Workforce Solutions and Select Staffing, 
Osceola, Wisconsin, who became totally or partially separated from 
employment on or after June 28, 2009 through August 26, 2012, and 
all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation 
from employment on the date of certification through two years from 
the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment 
assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as 
amended.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 22nd day of February 2012.
 Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2012-5394 Filed 3-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Exhibit 10.1

Shoppers Wa11et Inc.

Demand Promissory Note

Amount: $15,000US

Due: On Demand not earlier than 12 months after the date of this loan.

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Shopper's Wallet, Inc (the "Borrower"), of
Hanesher 33 St. Raanana 43726 Israel, hereby acknowledges itself indebted to Mr.
Jacob Perry (the "Lender") and promises to pay on demand to or to the order of
the Lender at Hanesher 33 St. Raanana 43726 Israel, or as otherwise directed in
writing by the Lender, the principal sum of $1 5,000US without interest.

The Lender may assign all or part of its rights and title, to and under this
promissory note. All payments required to be made hereunder shall be made by the
Borrower without any right of set off on counterclaim.

Dated: Dec 1, 2006

Borrower:                                      Lender:

Shopper's Wallet Inc.                          Mr. Jacob Perry


/s/ Mirkovic Dejan                             /s/ Jacob Perry
---------------------------------              ---------------------------------
Mirkovic Dejan -- Secretary                    Jacob Perry
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1749 

AN ACT 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the possession or use of cell phones and similar wireless devices 

by Federal prisoners. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 1749 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Cell Phone Contraband 

3 Act of 2010’’. 

4 SEC. 2. WIRELESS DEVICES IN PRISON. 

5 Section 1791 of title 18, United States Code, is 

6 amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (b)— 

8 (A) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘or 

9 (d)(1)(E)’’ and inserting ‘‘, (d)(1)(E), or 

10 (d)(1)(F)’’; and 

11 (B) in paragraph (5), by striking 

12 ‘‘(d)(1)(F)’’ and inserting ‘‘(d)(1)(G)’’; and 

13 (2) in subsection (d)(1)— 

14 (A) in subparagraph (E), by striking 

15 ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

16 (B) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as 

17 subparagraph (G); and 

18 (C) by inserting after subparagraph (E) 

19 the following: 

20 ‘‘(F) a phone or other device used by a 

21 user of commercial mobile service (as defined in 

22 section 332(d) of the Communications Act of 

23 1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(d))) in connection with 

24 such service; and’’. 
3 

†S 1749 ES

1 SEC. 3. GAO STUDY. 

2 Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment 

3 of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit a report 

4 to Congress with research and findings on the following 

5 issues: 

6 (1) A study of telephone rates within State and 

7 Federal prisons and jails to include information on 

8 interstate, intrastate and collect calls made by pris9 oners, including— 

10 (A) the costs of operating inmate telephone 

11 services; 

12 (B) the revenue obtained from inmate tele13 phone systems; 

14 (C) how the revenue from these systems is 

15 used by State governments and the Bureau of 

16 Prisons; and 

17 (D) recommendations to lower telephone 

18 costs to inmates and their families, while still 

19 maintaining sufficient security. 

20 (2) A study of State and Federal efforts to pre21 vent the smuggling of cell phones and other wireless 

22 devices into prisons and jails, including efforts that 

23 State and Federal authorities are making to mini24 mize trafficking of cell phones by guards and other 

25 prison officials and recommendations to reduce the 
4 

†S 1749 ES

1 number of cell phones that are trafficked into pris2 ons and jails. 

3 (3) A study of cell phone use by inmates in 

4 State and Federal prisons and jails, including— 

5 (A) the cost that inmates pay for cell 

6 phones trafficked into prisons; 

7 (B) the quantity of cell phones that are lo8 cated in State and Federal prisons and jails; 

9 and 

10 (C) the quantity of illegal activity that is 

11 conducted or facilitated as a result of inmate 

12 cell phone use. 

Passed the Senate April 13, 2010. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1749 

AN ACT 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit 

wireless devices by Federal prisoners. the possession or use of cell phones and similar
---

Exhibit: 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

In connection with the Som Resources Inc.,(the
"Company") on 10Q SB for the period ending January 31, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gary
Fife, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and                                  
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                
| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
      of the Company.

Date: March 14, 2006.

/s/ Gary
FifeGary Fife

Chief Financial Officer(Title)

---
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1703 

To amend the Act of June 18, 1934, to reaffirm the authority of the 

Secretary of the Interior to take land into trust for Indian tribes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2009 

Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. TESTER, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. UDALL of New Mexico, Mr. BINGAMAN, and Mr. FRANKEN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Act of June 18, 1934, to reaffirm the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to take land into 

trust for Indian tribes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 19 of the Act of June 18, 

5 1934 (commonly known as the ‘‘Indian Reorganization 

6 Act’’) (25 U.S.C. 479), is amended— 

7 (1) in the first sentence— 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1703 IS

1 (A) by striking ‘‘The term’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘Effective beginning on June 18, 1934, the 

3 term’’; and 

4 (B) by striking ‘‘any recognized Indian 

5 tribe now under Federal jurisdiction’’ and in6 serting ‘‘any federally recognized Indian tribe’’; 

7 and 

8 (2) by striking the third sentence and inserting 

9 the following: ‘‘In this section, the term ‘Indian 

10 tribe’ means any Indian or Alaska Native tribe, 

11 band, nation, pueblo, village, or community that the 

12 Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an 

13 Indian tribe.’’. 

14 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

15 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the Act 

16 of June 18, 1934 (commonly known as the ‘‘Indian Reor17 ganization Act’’) (25 U.S.C. 479), on the date of enact18 ment of that Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth 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.

 April 10, 2015

p0407

Order 

Clerk

April 10, 2015

151274 & (18)

SHEAN SATGUNAM, M.D.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 151274

COA: 323798

Ingham CC: 12-001194-NM

HACKNEY, GROVER, HOOVER & BEAN,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the February 10, 2015 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented 

should be reviewed by this Court.