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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned principal executive officer of Dearborn Capital Management, L.L.C., the general
partner (the General Partner) of Grant Park Futures Fund Limited Partnership (Grant Park), and principal financial officer of the General Partner hereby certifies that:

(1) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of Grant Park for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 Grant Park.

Date: February 24, 2011



/s/ David M. KavanaghDavid M. KavanaghPresident(Principal Executive Officer)Dearborn Capital Management, L.L.C.General Partner/s/ Maureen ORourkeMaureen ORourkeChief Financial OfficerDearborn Capital Management, L.L.C.General Partner


This certification accompanies this
Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by Grant Park for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Chester WILLIAMS, Deceased. Cleotha WILLIAMS v. Russell HAMBLIN, Administrator.

No. 91-CA-0688.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 16, 1993.

Robert W. Long, Herring Long & Joiner, Canton, for appellant.

Fred T. Rucker, Scales & Seales, Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal No. 28782 from Judgment dated May 14, 1991, Ray Hillman Montgomery, Ruling Judge, Madison County Chancery Court.

Before DAN M. LEE, P.J., and BANKS and JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr., JJ.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 52 (Friday, March 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 15783]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6337]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; 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 contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel Nanotechnology Sensing Platforms.
    Date: March 26, 2012.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, 
6116 Executive Blvd., Conference Room 611, Rockville, MD 20852, 
(Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Virginia P. Wray, Ph.D., Deputy Chief, Research 
Programs Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National 
Cancer Institute, NIH, 6116 Executive Blvd., Room 8125, Bethesda, MD 
20892-8328, 301-496-9236, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#611613001817210c00080d4f0f08094f060e17"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="abdcd9cad2ddebc6cac2c785c5c2c385ccc4dd">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home 
page: http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/sep/sep.htm, where an 
agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted 
when available.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 9, 2012.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-6337 Filed 3-15-12; 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>
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 40873 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. JUANA YULIANA MARTINEZ

- RAMIREZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:13

- CR

- 244

- 1

Before PRADO, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juana Yuliana Martinez

- Ramirez 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). Martinez

- Ramirez h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this o pinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 16, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-40873 Document: 00512598322 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/16/201413

- 40873 presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion fo r leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 13-40873 Document: 00512598322 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2014
Order entered August 15, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00153-CV

IN RE FIVE STAR GLOBAL, LLC, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-08643

ORDER

Before Justices Molberg, Pedersen III, and Garcia

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we CONDITIONALLY GRANT

relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. We ORDER the trial judge, the Honorable 

Martin Hoffman, (1) to vacate his February 18, 2022 order granting real parties’ 

Motion to Strike Jury Demand (the Motion); (2) to deny the Motion; (3) to remove 

this case from the non-jury docket; and (4) to reset this case for jury trial.

We further ORDER the trial judge to file with this Court within fifteen (15) 

days of the date of this order, a certified copy of his order issued in compliance 
with this order. Should the trial judge fail to comply with this order, the writ will 

issue.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN

 JUSTICE
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Melvin Harrell, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, J.), rendered November 28, 1989, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Lawrence, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wallace ROBERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 99-10455.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 12, 2003.*

Decided May 19, 2003.

Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Wallace Roberson appeals the 51-month sentence imposed after a jury convicted *102him of conspiracy and false claims against the government in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 286-287. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s interpretation of the sentencing guidelines and give due deference to its application of the guidelines to the facts. *United States v. Van Krieken,*39 F.3d 227, 230 (9th Cir.1994). We affirm.

Roberson contends that the district court erred by using the sentencing guideline for fraud and deceit, U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1 (1992), rather than the guideline for tax-related offenses, U.S.S.G. § 2T1.4 (1992). We disagree. ‘When a particular statute proscribes a variety of conduct that might constitute the subject of different offense guidelines, the court will determine which guideline section applies based upon the nature of the offense conduct charged in the count of which the defendant was convicted.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.2, cmt n. 1 (1992). Here, the court properly applied U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1 (1992) because Roberson was charged with conspiracy and false claims against the government. *See*U.S.S.G. Appx. A (1992) (§ 2F1.1 applies to 18 U.S.C. §§ 286-287); *e.g., Van Krieken,*39 F.3d at 231 (approving use of obstruction of justice guideline for defendant convicted of corrupt interference with the administration of tax laws).

Roberson also challenges a four-level upward adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 for being a leader or organizer. The district court did not clearly err in concluding that Roberson was an organizer or leader for sentencing purposes based on witness testimony that Roberson knew how to carry out the scheme, was the source of the fraudulent W-2 forms, received the largest cut of the money received, and instructed others on how to carry out the scheme. *See United States v. Avila,*95 F.3d 887, 889 (9th Cir.1996).

We do not consider Roberson’s contention that the court incorrectly calculated the loss for sentencing purposes because defense counsel stated at the sentencing hearing that she did not object to inclusion of losses established by witness testimony at trial. *See United States v. HernandezRamirez,*254 F.3d 841, 845 (9th Cir.2001) (challenge to sentencing calculation not raised with the district court waived).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Mark A. GEROW, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-880.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 9, 1987.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Allyn Giambalvo, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.

. Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

RYDER, Judge.

Appellant was charged with eleven counts of burglary, four counts of grand theft, and two counts of petit theft. Appel*327lant pled nolo contendere, was adjudicated guilty and sentenced on all seventeen counts. Appellant appeals his sentences for the four grand theft convictions.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him to three years’ incarceration to be followed by five years’ probation on each of his third-degree grand theft convictions. We agree.

In a split sentence, the combined number of years of incarceration and probation cannot exceed the statutory maximum for the offense. *McGraw v. State,*404 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.701(d)(12), committee note (1985 amendment). The maximum sentence for a third-degree grand theft felony is five years. The trial court imposed illegal sentences as to appellant’s grand theft convictions.

Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s convictions and reverse and vacate his sentences on the four grand theft convictions. On remand, the trial court is to sentence appellant to three years’ incarceration to be followed by two years’ probation on each of his third-degree felony grand theft convictions.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

DANAHY, C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.
#### Tootie B. McGregor, Appellant, v. James E. Kellum and Sallie Miller, Appellees.

ON REHEARING.

This case was decided by Division A.

Cockrell, J.

A re-hearing of the testimony, upon the petition for rehearing makes it appear that the finding that neither Dr. Kellum nor his family “ever saw the old place,” during the four years preceeding his death is perhaps not warranted. It is positively shown that no one ever resided there during that interval, but one witness testified that Dr. Kellum went “to up river” every now and then. It is possible to gleam from this that Dr. Kellum. may have been an occasional visitor to the place, and to this extent the statement of facts in the opinion is modified; but the modification does not effect the ultimate finding of “abandonment,” and the rehearing is denied.

Shackleford, C. J., and Whitfield, J., concur.

Taylor, P. J., and Hocker and Parkhill, JJ., concur in the opinion.
#### STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Marvin Arthur POWELL, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 19068.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Oct. 20, 1983.

H. Ralph Klemm, Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.

David L. Wilkinson, Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Defendant was convicted of attempted theft by receiving1 two horses which proved not to have been stolen, but which were employed in what has come to be known as a “sting” operation. The defendant urges on appeal that the offense could not be committed unless the subject property was shown to have in fact been stolen.

U.C.A., 1953, § 76-4-101 provides, in part, as follows:

> (3) No defense to the offense of attempt shall arise:

> (a) ...

> (b) Due to factual or legal impossibility if the offense could have been committed had the attendant circumstances been as the actor believed them to be.

To be guilty of attempted theft by receiving, the attendant circumstances need only be as the actor believed them to be. In *State v. Sommers,*Utah, 569 P.2d 1110 (1977), we made it clear that the actual theft of the property is not an essential element of the offense of attempted theft by receiving. The opinion negated “impossibility” as a defense as stated as follows:

> Thus to exculpate defendant solely on the ground the television set he purchased was not, in fact, stolen property would shock the common sense of justice. The defense of impossibility is not a fundamental right .... His [defendant’s] conviction was predicated on proof of his criminal purpose implemented by an overt act strongly corroborative of such purpose.2

The *Sommers*holding is controlling. The verdict and judgment in the instant case are affirmed.

STEWART, J., concurs in the result.

1

. In violation of U.C.A., 1953, §§ 76-6408 and 764-101.

2

. For a sampling of comparable rulings by sister states, *see State v. Davidson,*20 Wash.App. 893, 584 P.2d 401 (1978); *Darr v. People,*193 Colo. 445, 568 P.2d 32 (1977); *Darnell v. State,*92 Nev. 680, 558 P.2d 624 (1976); and *People v. Rojas,*55 Cal.2d 252, 10 Cal.Rptr. 465, 358 P.2d 921 (1961).
#### Karen Stevens, Wife of/and J. Elliott PRIEUR v. Lenny M. Chandler, Wife of/and Alfred L. LAMBERT, et al.

No. 88-C-3050.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 20, 1989.

In re Klein, Henry L.; — Other(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 88-CA-0292; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 285885.

Prior report: La.App., 534 So.2d 987.

Denied.

CALOGERO and MARCUS, JJ.,

would grant on the value of the use of property credit.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6322
MIRIAM OLIVIA DURHAM, Petitioner - Appellant, versusE. RICHARD BAZZLE, Warden; CHARLIE CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-97-3253-0-18BD) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: June 3, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Miriam Olivia Durham, Appellant Pro Se. Lauri J. Soles, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina; Leslie Brown Darwin, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on her petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find noreversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Durham v. Bazzle , CA-97-3253-0-18BD (D.S.C. Feb. 2, 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.

DISMISSED
---

Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Xeno Transplants Corporation
  (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30,
  2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
  (the Report), I, Elliot Lebowitz, Executive Officer of the Company,
  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

|November 13, 2007 | /s/ Elliot Lebowitz                  
|----------------- | -------------------------------------
|                  | Elliot Lebowitz                      
|                  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                  | (Principal Executive Officer)        

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1
 
                        Subsidiaries of the Registrant
                        ------------------------------
                                        

All subsidiaries do business under the respective names listed below.



1.   Investors Bank & Trust Company
      Massachusetts chartered trust company

2.   Investors Safe Deposit Corp.
      Massachusetts corporation

3.   Investors Securities Corporation
      Massachusetts securities corporation

4.   IBT Fund Services (Canada) Inc.
      incorporated in Canada

5.   IBT Holdings (Ireland) Limited
      organized in the Republic of Ireland

6.   Investors Financial Services (Ireland) Limited
      organized in the Republic of Ireland

7.   Investors Trust & Custodial Services (Ireland) Limited
      organized in the Republic of Ireland

8.   Investors Fund Services (Ireland) Limited
      organized in the Republic of Ireland

9.   IBT Trust Company (Cayman) Ltd.
      organized in the Cayman Islands
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2414 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2414

  To suspend temporarily the duty on certain window shade material in 
            rolls measuring between 300 and 500 square feet.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mrs. Hagan introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on certain window shade material in 
            rolls measuring between 300 and 500 square feet.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN WINDOW SHADE MATERIAL IN ROLLS MEASURING BETWEEN 300 
              AND 500 SQUARE FEET.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Window shade        Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        material in rolls                                                  31/2011.......
                        measuring between
                        300 and 500
                        square feet
                        composed of paper
                        material, woven
                        with polyester
                        yarn into a
                        repeating pattern
                        which may also
                        include faux
                        leather material
                        between 2.5 mm
                        and 4 mm wide
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        4601.99.90)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```