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

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32(a)

                            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 Annual Report of CheckFree Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter J. Kight,
Chairman and 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:

         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: September 12, 2003

                               /s/ Peter J. Kight
                               ------------------------------------------------
                               Peter J. Kight
                               Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of CheckFree
                               Corporation
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-09-00432-CR

Bill Francis Womack Jr., Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR2004-204, HONORABLE JACK H. ROBISON, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Bill Francis Womack, Jr. seeks to appeal from a judgment of conviction for theft. See

Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03 (West Supp. 2008). Sentence was imposed on March 3, 2009. No

motion for new trial was filed. The deadline for perfecting appeal was therefore April 2, 2009. See

Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1), (2). Notice of appeal was filed July 20, 2009, containing an assertion

that it was mailed by appellant on July 17, 2009. No extension of time for filing notice of appeal

was requested. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. Under the circumstances, we lack jurisdiction to dispose

of the attempted appeal in any manner other than by dismissing it for want of jurisdiction. See

Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522-23

(Tex. Crim. App. 1996).
2

The appeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________

G. Alan Waldrop, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Waldrop and Henson

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: August 31, 2009

Do Not Publish
#### DAVID DUBINSKY *v.*CITICORP MORTGAGE, INC.

*Kerry M. Wisser*and *Nathan A. Schatz,*in support of the petition.

*Matthew D. Gordon,*in opposition.

Decided April 15, 1998

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 48 Conn. App. 52 (AC 16790), is denied.
#### STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Dennis Paul KAUS, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 20360.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Oct. 29, 1987.

JoAnn B. Stringham, Vernal, for defendant and appellant.

David L. Wilkinson, Sandra L. Sjogren, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

*1376DURHAM, Justice:

Defendant was charged with aggravated sexual abuse of a child, in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-404.1 (Supp.1984). He pleaded guilty to the charge, reserving his right to challenge the sentencing provisions of the statute which he claimed were unconstitutional. Defendant was sentenced to a minimum mandatory term of three years.

This Court recently upheld sentencing provisions similar to the one challenged in this appeal in *State v. Bishop,*717 P.2d 261 (Utah 1986), and in *State v. Egbert,*66 Utah Adv.Rep. 52 (Sept. 28, 1987). There is no substantive difference in the sentencing scheme defendant challenges and those held constitutional in *Bishop*and *Egbert.*Although I dissented from the holding in *Eg-bert,*it has now become Utah law, and we are constrained to reject defendant’s appeal and affirm his conviction and sentence.

HALL, C.J., STEWART, Associate C.J., and HOWE and ZIMMERMAN, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6750

GARY FOREMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MEDICAL UNITS; RONALD ANGELONE; BOTETOURTCORRECTION, Administration; HAYNESVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER; INDIAN CREEK CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-97-34-A) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 26, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Foreman, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Gary Foreman appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. 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. Foreman v. Medical Units , NO. CA-97-34-A (E.D. Va. Apr. 30, 1998). 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.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 24.1

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                -----------------

         The  undersigned,  members of the Board of Directors  of the  following
         companies:

         Salton Sea Brine Processing L.P.       Salton Sea Power Generation L.P.
         Fish Lake Power LLC                    Vulcan Power Company
         CalEnergy Operating Corporation        Salton Sea Royalty LLC
         VPC Geothermal LLC                     San Felipe Energy Company
         Conejo Energy Company                  Niguel Energy Company
         Vulcan/BN Geothermal Power Company     Leathers, L.P.
         Del Ranch, L.P.                        Elmore, L.P.
         Salton Sea Power L.L.C.                CE Turbo LLC
         CE Salton Sea Inc.

hereby  constitute and appoint Douglas L. Anderson and Paul J. Leighton and each
of them, as his/her true and lawful  attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power
of  substitution  and  resubstitution,  for  and in his  stead,  in any  and all
capacities,  to sign on his behalf the Salton  Sea  Funding  Corporation's  (the
"Company")  Form 10-K Annual Report for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2002
and to execute any  amendments  thereto and to file the same,  with all exhibits
thereto,  and all other documents in connection  therewith,  with the Securities
and Exchange Commission and applicable stock exchanges,  with the full power and
authority to do and perform each and every act and thing  necessary or advisable
to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person,  hereby ratifying
and  confirming  all that said  attorney-in-fact  and agent or his substitute or
substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

Dated as of March 28, 2003.


/s/ Ian A Bourne
Ian A. Bourne

/s/ J. Thomas Coyle
J. Thomas Coyle
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 40 (Wednesday, February 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 12280]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4790]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14186-000; Project No. 14197-000]


Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XXXV; FFP Project 57, LLC;Notice 
Announcing Filing Priority for Preliminary Permit Applications

    On February 22, 2012, the Commission held a drawing to determine 
priority among competing preliminary permit applications with identical 
filing times. In the event that the Commission concludes that none of 
the applicants' plans are better adapted than the others to develop, 
conserve, and utilize in the public interest the water resources of the 
region at issue, the priority established by this drawing will serve as 
the tiebreaker. Based on the drawing, the order of priority is as 
follows:
    1. Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XXXV, Project No. 14186-000.
    2. FFP Project 57, LLC, Project No. 14197-000.

    Dated: February 22, 2012.
 Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-4790 Filed 2-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
**Exhibit 31.2**
     Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
I, Karen M. Spaun, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-K of Meadowbrook InsuranceGroup, Inc.;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;  4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c)  disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case ofan annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and  b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.
Date:     March 16, 2005                                  /s/ Karen M. Spaun                                                  Karen M. Spaun
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Caribou Coffee Company, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 2, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Michael J. Coles, President and 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; and

(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.

May 15, 2006

                                        /s/ Michael J. Coles
                                        --------------------------------------
                                        Michael J. Coles
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

                 PERSONNEL GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. AND AFFILIATES


                            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 Annual Report of Personnel Group of America,
Inc.(the "Company"), on Form 10-K for the period ending December 29, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Larry L. Enterline, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, hereby certifies 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/ Larry L. Enterline
--------------------------
Larry L. Enterline
Chief Executive Officer
April 14, 2003
From: john.friddle@eagleperformanceproducts.com To: Emma Lavoie/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Subject: RE: Your input on HBCD uses Date: 03/03/2011 09:09 AM

Emma I have surveyed my colleagues in the USA and Friendly competitors and presented the HBCD /EPA plan

something like this:

1

. removal from all consumer goods (definition of consumer is vague) 2

. SNUR from all waterways 3

. Restricted and highly managed in Polystyrene.

We discussed the Textile Market and came to this consensus Textiles (water-based).

HBCD primary application use is for Nylon and Polyarimide based textiles. The end use of theses Textiles are for Military,Institutional, and Aviation. The short term use of HBCD has grown with the Deca phase-out date in place.

Our recommendation is Llimit the use of HBCD to either the Markets We listed or to the Fibers. We suggest a minimum of 3 years due to aviation and Military long term planning.

Emma, I would prefer that we be quoted as a group of Textile formulators and not as individuals. I hope this helps John Friddle

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Your input on HBCD uses From: Lavoie.Emma@epamail.epa.gov Date: Fri, February 11, 2011 5:00 pm To: john.friddle@eagleperformanceproducts.com

John,

Thanks for talking with me about HBCD uses in textiles this past Tuesday. Two questions for you:

1. Would you be willing to put your information in writing? Could we cite you as a personal communication?

Here are my notes from our conversation:HBCD is used in nylon or polyaramide textiles for military uses and institutional/commercial products such as durable carpet tiles for hospitals or prisons. HBCD is not used in consumer textiles, however we need to define 'consumer textiles'.

HBCD use in general is increasing because it is a functional alternative to decaBDE and decaBDE has a clear phase out timeline whereas HBCD does not.

2. To what degree does your knowledge of HBCD uses in textiles cover nationwide (USA) HBCD use? It would be helpful to know if there are many or only a few compounders or processors, and how complete your knowledge is about their activity.

Feel free to call me and discuss my questions. We can have a conversation with our regulatory staff to give better context to our need for your comments in writing if you would like.

-Emma

___________________________________ Emma T. Lavoie, PhD Toxicologist Design for the Environment Program - US EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Tel: 202.564.0951 www.epa.gov/dfe
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 2075)    
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 materials, 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 Neurological Disorders and Stroke Initial Review Group NST-1 Subcommittee.                    

*Date:*                         January 30-31, 2012.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 6 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         The Fairmont Washington, DC, 2401 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Raul A. Saavedra, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, NIH, NSC, 6001 Executive Blvd., Suite 3208, MSC 9529 Bethesda, MD 20892-9529 (301) 496-9223,                         *saavedrr@ninds.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 6, 2012.

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2012-564 Filed 1-12-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH DISTRICT, AT EL PASO

No. 08-17-00110-CV

Maria Arambula

v.

Manuel Y. Enriquez and Angela Enriquez

(No. 2012DCV05646 IN 243RD DISTRICT COURT OF EL PASO COUNTY)

Type of Fee Charges Paid By

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

REPORTER'S RECORD

CLERK'S RECORD

FILING

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$27.00

$32.00

$205.00

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

PAID

TONY AGUILAR

TONY AGUILAR

TONY AGUILAR

ANTHONY C. AGUILAR

Balance of costs owing to the Eighth Court of Appeals, El Paso, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, DENISE PACHECO, CLERK OF THE EIGHTH COURT OF APPEALS OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and

correct copy of the cost bill of THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH

DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and payments, in the above numbered and

styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand

and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for

the Eighth District of Texas, this 5/23/18.

Denise Pacheco, Clerk

FILE COPY
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

ARISTIDES CARCAMO, AKA Indio, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-16825 

D.C. Nos. 3:16-cv-03483-WHA 

3:08-cr-0730-WHA-26 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding

Submission Withdrawn February 26, 2019

Submitted July 19, 2019**

San Francisco, California

Before: McKEOWN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Aristides Carcamo was one of twenty-nine defendants charged with multiple 

offenses connected to their membership in the gang racketeering organization, La 

Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13. In 2011, Carcamo pled guilty to conspiracy to 

 * 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

JUL 23 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO 

conspiracy”) and conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering (“VICAR 

conspiracy”). See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1959(a)(5), 1962(d). Carcamo also pled guilty to 

two other charges, including violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for possessing or 

carrying a fireman in furtherance of a “crime of violence.” The § 924 charge relied

on the RICO and VICAR conspiracies. Following Johnson v. United States, 135 S. 

Ct. 2551 (2015), and Dimaya v. Lynch, 803 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2015), Carcamo

moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his § 924(c) conviction and 

accompanying five-year mandatory sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1291, 2253(a), and 2255(d).

The only issues on appeal are whether Carcamo is entitled to relief under 

§ 2255 because 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)’s “residual” clause is void for vagueness and 

whether his petition is timely.1

 The answer to both these questions is yes. 

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 

2319 (2019), settles both issues on appeal. In Davis, the Court determined that 

§ 924(c)’s residual clause, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B), is unconstitutionally vague

and therefore void. In light of Davis, we also resolve any issues of timeliness in 

 1 The district court only analyzed whether the residual clause was void for 

vagueness. On remand, the district court may consider, in the first instance, the 

government’s argument that Carcamo’s § 2255 petition should be denied under §

924(c)(3)(A), the “force” or “elements” clause.
3 

Carcamo’s favor.

REVERSED and REMANDED.