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



CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT
TO

18
U.S.C. 1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
connection with Annual Report of ADAMAS ONE CORP. (the “Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2022 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned John G. Grdina, Chief
Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) of the Company, certifies, 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 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) 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:
    January 13, 2023 | By:    | /s/
    John G. Grdina                                   
|-------------------------- | ------ | ---------------------------------------------------------
|                           | Name:  | John
    G. Grdina                                       
|                           | Title: | Chief
    Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
[No. 14495-0-III.

Division Three.

July 16, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Chester L. Sanders, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Walla Walla County, No. 91-1-00196-8, Donald W. Schacht, J., entered November 9, 1994. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Munson, J., concurred in by Sweeney, C.J., and Schultheis, J.
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Crit S. DeMent, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007of Lease Equity Appreciation Fund II, L.P.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) [omission in accordance with SEC Release No. 33-8760 (December 15, 2006)] for theregistrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) [omission in accordance with SEC Release No. 33-8760 (December 15, 2006)];  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: November 14, 2007 /s/ Crit S. DeMent         Name: Crit S. DeMent    Title: Chief Executive Officer of the General Partner
### May 10, 2010

NOTE TO THE DOCKET:

On March 9, 2010, EPA staff participated in a m eeting with INGAA, which involved a general discussion about the tailoring rule proposal.

Attendees : Ravindra Kura, El Paso Corp. Bruce Moore, EPA Roberto Jackson, Dominion Resources Mary Beth Whitfield, Williams Gas Pipeline Troy Meinke, Alliance Pipeline Lisa Conner, EPA Juan Santiago, EPA Dave Svendsgaard, EPA Lisa Beal, INGAA Anna Wood, OPAR (via phone)
### MANDATE



## Court of Appeals

**First District of Texas**

NO. 01

- 15

- 00314

- CV

CEVA LOGISTICS U.S., INC. AND CEVA FREIGH T, LLC , Appellants

V.

ACME TRUCK LINE, INC

. , Appellee

Appeal from the 129th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 2010

- 39403).

TO THE 129TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 29th day of September 2015, the case upon appeal to

revise or to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these

words:

After inspecting the record of the court below, the

Court holds that it lacks jurisdiction over this appeal.

Accordingly, the Court dismisses the appeal.

The Court orders that the appellants, CEVA Logistics

U.S., Inc. and CEVA Freight, LLC, jointly and severally, pay

all appellate costs.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below

for observance.

Judgment rendered September 29, 2015.Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting of Justices

Jennings, Higley, and Brown.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court

in this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

December 11, 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

CLERK OF THE COURT
#### Glyn Dale PAREGIEN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. M-80-17.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

June 10, 1981.

Jess Horn, Oklahoma City, for appellant.

Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen. of Oklahoma, William S. Flanagan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

*327OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

Appellant, Glyn Dale Paregien, was convicted in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CRM-79-1015 of Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor, 47 O.S.1971, § 11-902. He was sentenced to ten (10) days in the County Jail and a fine of One Hundred ($100) Dollars. A timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

Appellant’s sole assignment of error is that the trial court erred in failing to give sua sponte a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of Driving While Impaired. This proposition is not well taken.1 The trial court should give instructions on lesser offenses included in the crime charged where the evidence would support such a theory. See *King v. State,*556 P.2d 1306 (Okl.Cr.1976). Such is not the case here. Each of three investigating officers testified that appellant appeared to be intoxicated or highly intoxicated at the time of the arrest. This is supported by testimony as to appellant’s behavior at the time. On the other hand, both defense witnesses, including appellant testifying on his own behalf, testified that appellant had not had even a drop of alcohol to drink on the day and evening in question. It would clearly appear that, under the evidence, appellant was either intoxicated as he operated his vehicle, or cold sober. There is no basis in the evidence for instructing that the jury could find appellant guilty merely of driving while impaired.

Accordingly, this assignment of error is without merit. The judgment and sentence appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED.

BRETT, P. J., and CORNISH, J., concur.

1

. Speaking for himself, the author is of the view that he was in error in concurring in *Jackson v. State,*554 P.2d 39 (Okl.Cr.1976), wherein it was stated that Driving While 1m-paired, 47 O.S.Supp.1978, § 761, is a lesser offense included within Driving Under the Influence, 47 O.S.Supp.1978, § 11-902.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification ofChief Financial Officer of GFI Group Inc.Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of GFI Group Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James A. Peers, ChiefFinancial 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, thatto my knowledge:

1.                The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 10,2007

| /s/ JAMES  A. PEERS       |     |   |
|---------------------------|----------|--------|
| James A. Peers            |     |
| *Chief Financial Officer* | * * |

 

----
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-3120

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Missouri.

* 

Ryan A. Moore, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 9, 2008

Filed: November 19, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ryan Moore pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He was sentenced to 180 months of imprisonment

as an Armed Career Criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) after the district court

determined he had three prior violent felonies, two for committing the Missouri

offense of tampering in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 569.080, and one for committing

the Missouri offense of auto theft in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 570.030. On appeal,
1

Moore also challenges the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1), making an argument

this court has previously rejected. See, e.g., United States v. Gary, 341 F.3d 829, 835

(8th Cir. 2003). We therefore reject it as well. 

-2-

Moore challenges his sentence contending his prior convictions were not violent

felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act.1

We recently held the Missouri crime of tampering does not qualify as a "crime

of violence" for purposes of U.S. Sentencing Guideline § 2K2.1(a)(2), United States

v. Williams, 537 F.3d 969, 974-75 (8th Cir. 2008), a term we recognize as

synonymous with the term "violent felony" for purposes of the Armed Career

Criminal Act, see United States v. Johnson, 417 F.3d 990, 996 (8th Cir. 2007) ("The

statutory definition of 'violent felony' is viewed as interchangeable with the guidelines

definition of 'crime of violence.'"). We also held the Missouri crime of auto theft does

not qualify as a "crime of violence" in certain circumstances. Williams, 537 F.3d at

973-74.

Based on the holding in Williams, we reverse Moore's sentence and remand this

case to the district court for resentencing.

______________________________
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4351

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SENITA BIRT DILL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, 

District Judge. (1:12-cr-00105-MR-DLH-1)

Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: January 14, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

G. Ryan Willis, Drew Nelson, WILLIS JOHNSON & NELSON, PLLC, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, 

United States Attorney, Don Gast, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Senita Birt Dill pled guilty to a false claims 

conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 286 (2012), access 

device fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(5) (2012), and 

aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A 

(2012), based on her fraudulent tax-filing scheme. On appeal, 

she raises two claims of ineffective assistance of trial 

counsel, asserting that her attorney was ineffective by: (1) 

conceding a winning argument concerning the Government’s 

untimely objections to the presentence report (“PSR”); and (2) 

failing to seek a continuance of the sentencing hearing once the 

trial court decided to consider the Government’s untimely 

objections to the PSR.

We decline to reach Dill’s claims of ineffective 

assistance of counsel. Unless an attorney’s ineffectiveness 

conclusively appears on the face of the record, ineffective 

assistance claims are not generally addressed on direct appeal. 

United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008). 

Instead, such claims should be raised in a motion brought 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), in order to permit 

sufficient development of the record. United States v. 

Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). Because there 

is no conclusive evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel 
3

on the face of the record, we conclude that these claims should 

be raised, if at all, in a § 2255 motion.

Thus, we affirm the criminal judgment. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JOHN KELLY DESTRAT, DOC #Y62415, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. )

) Case No. 2D17-3049

STATE OF FLORIDA, ) 

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed October 12, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee 

County; Mark A. Steinbeck, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Robert D. Rosen, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Brandon R. Christian, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

LaROSE, C.J., and KHOUZAM and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
[No. 14208-6-III.

Division Three.

June 6, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Janel Kimberly Ozanne, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Yakima County, No. 94-1-00632-6, Susan L. Hahn, J., entered June 23, 1994. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Thompson, J., concurred in by Sweeney, C.J., and Schultheis, J.
# m -& ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA #14-13-00630-CR 

### OFFENSE: Poss with Intent to Deliver a Controlled Substance STYLE: Lash Adarrin Scott v The State ofTexas COUNTY: Harris 

### COA DISPOSITION: Affirmed as Reformed 

## TRIALCOURT: 183rd District Court DATE: December 23, 2014 Publish: No TC CASE #: 1371641

IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS


### STYLE: Lash Adarrin Scottv The State ofTexas CCA# 

### CCADisposition: DATE: JUDGE: SIGNED: 

# P£0 S£ Petition \IS: 

# J**«-/5" FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CO 

# DATE: ^y/^/^/LT PC: 

# JUDGE: fjA UM>i^n^ PUBLISH: DNP:

MOTION FOR FOR REHEARI JUDGE: NG IN CCA IS:
ELECTRONIC RECORD
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 16

- 00210

- CV

PLAINSCAPITAL BANK

v. RICARDO DIAZ MIRANDA
On Appeal from the 275th District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. C

- 6048

- 13

- E

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and rendered . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and RENDERS judgment that that PlainsCapital is entitled to the following unpaid balances of principal a nd interest: (1) $935,107.76 on the Moorefield Note; (2) $4,482,769.13 on the McColl Note; and (3) $2,146,685.62 on the Cold

- Storage Note. We further render that Diaz take nothing in attorneys' fees. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against the appellee.
We further order this decision certified below for obse rvance. March 15, 2018
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 Atlas America Series 25-2004 (B) L.P.
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Freddie M. Kotek, Chief Executive Officer of the Managing General Partner,
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 results of operations of the
      Partnership.





By:
            /s/ Freddie M.
      KotekName:
            Freddie
      M. KotekTitle:
            Chief
      Executive Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
            August
      12, 2008
#### Clifford Ferrell FEASTER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-80-358.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Oct. 7, 1981.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 17, 1981.

*618Warren H. Crane, Lawton, for appellant.

Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen., Susan Talbot, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CORNISH, Judge:

The appellant was convicted of Robbery in the Second Degree in Case No. CRF-79-311 in the District Court of Comanche County. He was sentenced to three (3) years’ imprisonment.

The sole issue is whether the appellant’s confession was obtained pursuant to an illegal arrest. Its resolution turns on the reasonableness of the warrantless arrest made in the appellant’s dwelling at night.

As the Supreme Court has stated, the “warrantless arrest of a person is a species of seizure required by the [Fourth] Amendment to be reasonable.” *Payton v. New York,*445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980).

In *Payton,*the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsen-sual entry into a suspect’s home in order to make a routine felony arrest. That holding would control here had there been no consent to the police entry. The woman with whom the appellant was living, however, gave the arresting officer permission to enter the dwelling. And, she did this knowing his identity and purpose.

In *United States v. Matlock,*415 U.S. 164, 94 S.Ct. 988, 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974), the Supreme Court held that permission to search given by a third party who had common authority over the premises was sufficient to justify a warrantless search. That holding is dispositive here. The intrusiveness of entries to search and entries to arrest share a fundamental characteristic: the breach of the entrance to an individual’s home. *Payton v. New York, supra,*at 445 U.S. 589, 100 S.Ct. at 1381. It is reasonable to recognize that when one co-habitates with another, he assumes the risk that his co-inhabitant might permit such entries. *See, United States v. Matlock, supra,*415 U.S. 171, at n.7, 94 S.Ct. 993, at n.7.

We therefore conclude that the sanctity and integrity of the appellant in his residence was not unreasonably invaded where the police entered with the permission of his co-inhabitant. The confession was therefore incident to a lawful arrest. Judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.

BRETT, P. J., and BUSSEY, J., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 62 (Friday, March 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 19417]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7792]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

March 28, 2012.
    The Department of the Treasury will submit the following 
information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, on or after the date of 
publication of this notice.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before April 30, 2012 to be 
assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other 
aspect of the information collection, including suggestion for reducing 
the burden, to the (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, 
New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or 
email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#337c7a61726c6046515e5a40405a5c5d737c7e711d767c631d747c65"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="652a2c37243a361007080c16160c0a0b252a28274b202a354b222a33">[email protected]</span></a> and to the (2) Treasury PRA 
Clearance Officer, 1750 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 11020, Washington, 
DC 20220, or on-line at www.PRAComment.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the submission(s) may be 
obtained by calling (202) 927-5331, email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d484869594a0a6b1b5a7a1a6adfab3bba2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6c3c3e2d2c181e090d1f191e15420b031a">[email protected]</span></a>, or the 
entire information collection request maybe found at www.reginfo.gov.

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB)

    OMB Number: 1513-0020.
    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Application for and Certification/Exemption of Label/Bottle 
Approval.
    Form: TTB F 5100.31.
    Abstract: The Federal Alcohol Administration Act requires the 
labeling of alcohol beverages and designates the Treasury Department to 
oversee compliance with regulations. This form is completed by the 
regulated industry members and submitted to TTB as an application to 
label their products. TTB oversees label applications to prevent 
consumer deception and to deter falsification of unfair advertising 
practices on alcohol beverages.
    Affected Public: Private Sector: Businesses or other for-profits.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 67,566.

Dawn D. Wolfgang,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-7792 Filed 3-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P


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