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                  March                  31, 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. BurlesonChief                  Executive Officer |   |   |        |
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-1281

_____________________________

MICHAEL GREEN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Russell Healey, Judge.

July 16, 2019

PER CURIAM.

In his petition for habeas corpus, the appellant attempts to 

collaterally attack his judgments and sentences for the third time.

The trial court correctly determined that the appellant is not 

entitled to relief. A petition for habeas corpus is not available to 

seek collateral postconviction relief. Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 

1236, 1242 (Fla. 2004). If we review the appellant’s petition as a 

motion for postconviction relief, the motion is time-barred because

the appellant’s judgments and sentences became final more than 

two years prior to him filing the instant motion. See Fla. R. Crim. 

P. 3.850(b); Green v. State, 169 So. 3d 1166 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) 

(Table). 

AFFIRMED.
2

LEWIS, B.L. THOMAS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Michael Green, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
<PAGE>

           Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm" in the Statement of Additional Information
and the incorporation by reference therein and to the use of our report dated
February 27, 2006 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of IDS
Life Insurance Company (name subsequently changed to RiverSource Life
Insurance Company) and to the use of our report dated March 31, 2006 with
respect to the financial statements of American Enterprise Variable Annuity
Account (name subsequently changed to RiverSource Variable Annuity Account) in
the Initial Registration Statement on Form N-4 for the registration of the
Evergreen New Solutions Variable Annuity offered by RiverSource Life Insurance
Company.

                                               /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
                                               ------------------------------
                                                   Ernst & Young LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
January 2, 2007
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1792 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the requirements 

for windows, doors, and skylights to be eligible for the credit for nonbusiness energy property. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 15, 2009 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Mr. GRASSLEY) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 

the requirements for windows, doors, and skylights to 

be eligible for the credit for nonbusiness energy property. 

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 STANDARDS FOR WINDOWS, 

4 DOORS, AND SKYLIGHTS WITH RESPECT TO 

5 THE CREDIT FOR NONBUSINESS ENERGY 

6 PROPERTY. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (4) of section 25C(c) 

8 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by strik9 ing ‘‘is equal to’’ and all that follows and inserting ‘‘meets 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1792 IS

1 the criteria for such components established by the 2010 

2 Energy Star Program Requirements for Residential Win3 dows, Doors, and Skylights, Version 5.0 (or any subse4 quent version of such requirements which is in effect after 

5 January 4, 2010).’’. 

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

7 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

8 December 31, 2009. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1343
KOOSHA E. POUYAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAVID M. SMITH; MIKE G. SHENIGO; AUTOMATED CONVEYOR SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-28-L) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: January 29, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Koosha Pouyan, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Cornelius Wood, III, Kristine H. Smith, EDMUNDS & WILLIAMS, P.C., Lynchburg, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Koosha Pouyan appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to Defendants in this action filed pursuant to TitleVII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e2 (1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Pouyan v. Smith , No. CA-95-28-L (W.D. Va. Feb. 15, 1996). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
-80 -78 -76 -74

 38

 40

 42

▲ ★

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

05/26

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 26 May 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.31 N 76.47 W Meters AGL
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     1999 Textainer Equipment Income Fund II, 10K
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000853086
<NAME>                        Textainer Equipment Income Fund II, LP
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         2,018
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3,250
<ALLOWANCES>                                   398
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               11
<PP&E>                                         47,751
<DEPRECIATION>                                 18,956
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 33,676
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,172
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     32,504
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   33,676
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               8,133
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  6,989
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               187
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                957
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   957
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-60207

Summary Calendar

SUSAN ADOBU ERE,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A097 684 340

Before WIENER, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Petitioner Susan Adobu Ere, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for

review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that dismissed

her appeal of the order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying her applications

for cancellation of removal and adjustment of status. She first claims that the

BIA erred by concluding that her prior Texas conviction for wholesale promotion

of obscene material is a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) which renders

her ineligible for adjustment of status.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 20, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 11-60207 Document: 00511701660 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2011
No. 11-60207

We use a two-part test to analyze the issue whether a given offense is a

CIMT. Hyder v. Keisler, 506 F.3d 388, 390 (5th Cir. 2007). This test demands

that we give significant deference to the BIA’s “definition of the phrase ‘moral

turpitude’” while we engage in a de novo review of the question whether the

elements of the disputed offense align with the definition of CIMT used by the

BIA. Id.

Our application of this standard to the facts and law of the instant case

shows no error in connection with the BIA’s decision. The Texas offense of

wholesale promotion of obscene materials necessarily involves conduct that the

average person would deem to appeal “to the prurient interest in sex,” to have

no artistic value, and involving “patently offensive representations or

descriptions of” sexual acts. Tex. Penal Code §§ 43.21, 43.23. This aligns with

the BIA’s description of moral turpitude as “conduct that shocks the public

conscience as being inherently base, vile, or depraved, and contrary to the

accepted rules of morality.” See Hyder, 506 F.3d at 391. The cases on which Ere

relies are materially distinguishable as they involve other statutes. She has not

shown that the BIA erred in concluding that her prior offense was a CIMT.

Likewise unavailing is Ere’s challenge to the BIA’s conclusion that her

false claim of United States citizenship on a voter registration application also

rendered her inadmissible. Ere does not deny making such false claim. Rather,

without citation to authority, she urges that it should not be held against her

because she did not actually vote and because the application did not contain a

statement that voting was limited to citizens. These arguments pertain to

matters that are irrelevant under the pertinent statute and thus are unavailing. 

See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I).

The petition for review is DENIED.

2

Case: 11-60207 Document: 00511701660 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2011
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted), the undersigned officers of HarborAcquisition Corporation  (the “Company”), hereby certify that, to the bestof their knowledge:

1. The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 31, 2007, to which this Certification is attached asExhibit 32.1 (the “Quarterly Report”) fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

2. The information contained in the QuarterlyReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

**InWitness Whereof,**the undersigned have set their hands heretoas of May 14, 2007.
| /s/ Robert J. Hanks                            |     |
|------------------------------------------------|----------|
| *Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer*        | * * |
| *(Principal Executive Officer)*                | * * |
|                                           |     |
| /s/ Todd A. Fitzpatrick                        |     |
| *Vice President*                               | * * |
| *(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)* | * * |

 

Thiscertification accompanies this Quarterly Report to which it relates, is notdeemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to beincorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the SecuritiesAct of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended(whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of anygeneral incorporation language contained in such filing.

----
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Techprecision Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended December 31, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Louis A. Winoski, the Interim Chief Executive Officer, and I, Richard F.
Fitzgerald, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do 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, 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.




Dated:
      February 16, 2010
            /s/Louis
      A. WinoskiLouis
      A. WinoskiInterim
      Chief Executive OfficerDated:
      February 16, 2010
            /s/Richard
      F. FitzgeraldRichard
      F. FitzgeraldChief
      Financial Officer
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-40705

Conference Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Alexander Nathan Barter, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:18-CR-42-1

Before Davis, Elrod, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Alexander Nathan Barter has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 

(5th Cir. 2011). Barter has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 24, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-40705 Document: 00515913777 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/24/2021
No. 20-40705

2

developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Barter’s claims of 

ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims

without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 

829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

record reflected therein, as well as Barter’s response. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, Barter’s pro se motion for the appointment of substitute 

counsel is DENIED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, 

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 20-40705 Document: 00515913777 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/24/2021
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*WILLIAM CONNELLY

*William Connelly,*pro se, in support of the petition.

*Rita M. Shair,*assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided March 17, 1998

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 46 Conn. App. 486 (AC 14639), is denied.
Exhibit 4.9





“Società per
Azioni” registered in the National Register of Banks

Parent Company of “GRUPPO INTESA” included in the National Register of Banking
Groups

Registered office in Milano, Piazza Paolo Ferrari, 10 - Share capital
3,613,001,195.96 euro, fully paid-in

Fiscal code and Milano Company Register: 00799960158 - VAT code: 10810700152 -
ABI code 3069-2

Member of the National Interbank Deposit Guarantee Fund and the National
Guarantee Fund


Pursuant
to U.S. legal and regulatory requirements, please note the following:


The Banca
Intesa securities referred to herein that will be issued in connection with the
merger described herein have not been, and are not intended to be, registered
under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) and may not be
offered or sold, directly or indirectly, into the United States except pursuant
to an applicable exemption. The Banca Intesa securities will be made available
within the United States in connection with the merger pursuant to an exemption
from the registration requirements of the Securities Act. The merger described
herein relates to the securities of two foreign (non-U.S.) companies and is
subject to disclosure requirements of a foreign country that are different from
those of the United States.  Financial
statements included in the document, if any, have been prepared in accordance
with foreign accounting standards that may not be comparable to the financial
statements of United States companies. It may be difficult for you to enforce
your rights and any claim you may have arising under U.S. federal securities
laws, since Banca Intesa and Sanpaolo IMI are located in Italy, and some or all
of their officers and directors may be residents of Italy or other foreign
countries. You may not be able to sue a foreign company or its officers or
directors in a foreign court for violations of the U.S. securities laws. It may
be difficult to compel a foreign company and its affiliates to subject
themselves to a U.S. court’s judgment. You should be aware that Banca Intesa
may purchase securities of Sanpaolo IMI otherwise than in the merger, such as
in open market or privately negotiated purchases. You should be aware that
Sanpaolo IMI may purchase securities of Banca Intesa otherwise than in the
merger, such as in open market or privately negotiated purchases.


COMMUNICATION PURSUANT TO ART.
131

OF CONSOB REGULATION NO. 11971/99

AND SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS


Please note that
on 22nd December 2006 the parties to the Shareholders’ Agreement of Banca
Intesa S.p.A. - stipulated on 3rd May 2005 - signed a deed to dissolve the
aforementioned Agreement by mutual consent as of 1st January 2007, the date the
merger by incorporation of Sanpaolo IMI S.p.A. with and into Banca Intesa
S.p.A. comes into legal effect.


Milano, 30th
December 2006
1. Rhino Media Productions, LLC 344 N Rose St, Kalamazoo, MI 49007 (269) 459 - 1404
hello@rhino.media

2. Looking to petition for exemption on Section 333 (drone operation)
3. We’re looking to seek exemption for Section 333. We are a video production company and have had many requests for aerial photography. We’re seeking exemption because we’d like to start using our drone outside of hobby/
recreational uses. 4. We’re seeking permission to use our drone for commercial use - researching and having the understanding rather than just doing it. 5. We would not adversely affect safety because we will follow the rules when it comes to the use of the drone. We will also be using a pilot to operate our drone. 6. Rhino Media Productions, LLC is seeking for exemption on Section 333 (drone operation). We’re seeking exemption due to the fact that we’re a video production company and clients are asking for aerial footage. There’s not many if at all any aerial photography (operated by a drone) companies in our region.
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Keewatin Windpower Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended February 28, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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.


Date: April 14, 2006

/s/ Chris Craddock
-------------------------------------------
Chris Craddock, Principal Financial Officer