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

# CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL
EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 Buffets Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ending December 15, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Roe H. Hatlen, 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.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 
| | 
|
|
|
|
|
| | 
| | 
|
| | 
| | 
| | 
| |
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 PSB Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Robert J. Halloran, Jr., President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 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 as of the dates and for the
periods covered by the report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 12, 2007



/s/ Robert J. Halloran, Jr.Robert J. Halloran, Jr.President and Treasurer
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

Turner Construction Company ) ASBCA No. 62826

)

Under Contract No. W91278-18-C-0009 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Michael J. Schrier, Esq. 

Hal J. Perloff, Esq.

Leah Kaiser, Esq.

 Husch Blackwell LLP

 Washington, DC

Michael A. Branca, Esq.

Jennifer L. Harris, Esq.

 Peckar & Abramson, PC

 Washington, DC

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq.

 Engineer Chief Trial Attorney

David C. Brasfield, Jr., Esq.

Kristine M. Knodel, Esq.

Thomas G. F. Landry, Esq.

 Engineer Trial Attorneys

 U.S. Army Engineer District, Mobile

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: November 16, 2022

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD

Administrative Judge

Acting Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals
2

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62826, Appeal of Turner 

Construction Company, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: November 17, 2022

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D 17

- 2099

_____________________________

L AMETRIA F REEMAN ,
Appellant,

v.

A NGIE G UILLORY C ROCHET ,
Appellee.

_____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Cour t for Okaloosa County. William F. Stone , Judge

.
August 13, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.

A FFIRMED

. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee , 377 So. 2d 115 0, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (noting that trial court decisions are presumed correct, appellant bears burden of dem onstrati n g error, and absence of a transcript makes it impossible to show reversible error).

R OBERTS , R OWE , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.33 1

.

_____________________________ Lametria Freeman, pro se, Appellant.

Angie Guillory Crochet, pro se, Appellee.
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
  (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: August 14, 2008
    /s/ Crit S. DeMentName:
    Crit S. DeMentTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer of the General Partner
##### 



POLYPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC.
 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Polypore International, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
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 misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedure, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and the material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date:  November 15, 2005
    /s/    Lynn AmosLynn AmosChief Financial Officer 34
Exhibit 32.0



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of SI Financial Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the Report), I hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of the Company as of and for the period covered
by this Report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/    RHEO A.
BROUILLARDRheo A. BrouillardPresident and Chief Executive OfficerNovember 10, 2005By:

/s/    BRIAN J. HULLBrian J. HullExecutive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial OfficerNovember 10, 2005
Exhibit 35.1





Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.








This Annual Statement as to Compliance is delivered to you pursuant to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 21, 2021 (the “Agreement”) and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of GM Financial Consumer Automobile Receivables Trust 2021-3 (the “Trust”), the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and the closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents by AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the “Servicer”) and AFS SenSub Corp. in connection therewith.  The capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.





The undersigned certifies that I am the Executive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of the Servicer.  I further certify as follows:





1. I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during the preceding period from January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023, and its performance under the Agreement.





2. To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no default in the fulfillment of any such obligation.








AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.





By:/s/ Connie CoffeyDated:March 4, 2024Connie CoffeyExecutive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer
#### Susan Anderson CARPENTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al., Appellees.

No. 4-86-1972.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 13, 1988.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied July 14, 1988.

Robert B. Miller of the Law Offices of Friedman & Miller, North Miami Beach, for appellant.

Jay Cohen and David W. Black of Atkinson, Jenne, Diner, Stone, Butterworth & Cohen, P.A., Hollywood, for appellee-Dept. of Transp.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

HERSEY, C.J., and LETTS, J., concur.

GUNTHER, J., dissents with opinion.

GUNTHER, Judge,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent.

In my view, the trial court erred in dismissing the second amended complaint with prejudice and in entering judgment in favor of the defendant, State of Florida, Department of Transportation (DOT). Contrary to the majority’s view, I would hold that the plaintiffs second amended complaint states a cause of action. The complaint alleges that DOT created a known dangerous condition which is not readily apparent to persons who could be injured by the condition thereby giving rise to a duty at the operational level to warn the public of, or protect the public from, the known danger. *City of St. Petersburg v. Collom,*419 So.2d 1082 (Fla.1982); *Department of Transportation v. Neilson,*419 So.2d 1071 (Fla.1982). At the very least, the plaintiff should have an opportunity to amend her complaint in view of the policy for liberal amendment of pleadings set forth in Rule 1.190(a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.

I would reverse and remand with instructions to the trial court to reinstate the second amended complaint.
IV 

107TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 506

Urging the States to include in their driver’s license exams at least one 

question about highway-rail grade crossings safety by fiscal year 2005. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 8, 2002

Mr. SHUSTER submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Urging the States to include in their driver’s license exams 

at least one question about highway-rail grade crossings 

safety by fiscal year 2005.

Whereas there were more than 3,200 accidents at highwayrail crossings in each of 1999, 2000, and 2001; 

Whereas more than 400 people died in accidents at highwayrail grade crossings in 2001; 

Whereas there are 2 ways to prevent accidents at highwayrail grade crossings—

(1) implementation of improved technology or elimination of grade crossings; and 

(2) education of the public;
2

•HCON 506 IH 

Whereas funds are provided for the implementation of improved technology and the elimination of grade crossings 

under section 130 of title 23, United States Code; and 

Whereas additional measures that help educate the public 

about the dangers and risks associated with highway-rail 

grade crossings should be implemented: Now, therefore, 

be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That Congress urges the States to include in 

3 their driver’s license exams, including commercial driver’s 

4 license exams, at least one question regarding highway5 rail grade crossings safety by fiscal year 2005.

Æ
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 PSB Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Robert J. Halloran, Jr., President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 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 as of the dates and for the
periods covered by the report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|            |  |                                                 
|----------- |  | ------------------------------------------------
|May 9, 2008 |  |                                                 
|            | 
|            |  | /s/ Robert J. Halloran, Jr.                     
|            |  | Robert J. Halloran, Jr.                         
|            |  | President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer



30
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ralph L. LUNA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 82SA74.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

July 6, 1982.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 3, 1982.

Paul Q. Beacom, Dist. Atty., Steven Bernard, Kathryn J. Aragon, Deputy Dist. At-tys., Brighton, for plaintiff-appellant.

No appearance for defendant-appellee.

ROYIRA, Justice.

The People seek review by appeal rather than by certiorari of the district court’s dismissal of their appeal of a ruling of the county court. For the reasons stated below, we dismiss the appeal filed in this court.

*625A Thornton police officer served the ap-pellee, Luna, a summons and complaint charging him with “Driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor and/or drug.” The Adams County Court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the above quoted charge did not include the words “a vehicle” after the word “driving,” and therefore the complaint was defective.

The People appealed this ruling to the Adams County District Court pursuant to section 13-6-310, C.R.S.1973, and Crim.P. 37. The district court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no final judgment from which an appeal could be taken.

The People appeal this ruling of dismissal under the apparent authority of section 16-12-102, C.R.S.1973 (Repl.Yol. 8). This statute provides that “The prosecution may appeal any decision of the trial court in a criminal case upon any question of law.”

We can do no better than to once again state the holding of *People v. Gonzales, Jr.,*198 Colo. 546, 603 P.2d 139 (1979), for it is dispositive of the case before us:

> “The district court is a court of dual jurisdiction, sitting both as a trial court and an appellate court. *Colo.Const.,*Art. VI, Sec. 9; section 13-6-310, C.R.S.1973. In the case before us, the district court was clearly sitting in its appellate capacity-

> “The only mechanism for review of a district court’s determination on appeal from the county court is by certiorari to this court as specified in section 13-6-310(4), C.R.S.1973, which directs that: ‘Further appeal to the supreme court from a determination of the district court or the superior court in a matter appealed to such court from the county court may be made only upon writ of certiorari issued in the discretion of the supreme court.

The People improperly appealed this case, and therefore the appeal is dismissed.
107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 326

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Commending the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration for their efforts to remind parents and care givers to use child safety seats andseat belts when transporting children in vehiclesand for sponsoring National Child PassengerSafety Week.

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 326

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas great progress has been made in increasing the use

of child safety seats in vehicles, which has reduced the

number of deaths of children involved in traffic accidents,

but much more remains to be done;

Whereas more than half of all children killed in motor vehicle

crashes in 2000 were completely unrestrained;
2

•HCON 326 EH

Whereas motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death

for children ages 4 to 14;

Whereas child safety seats reduce fatal injury by 71 percent

for infants and by 54 percent for toddlers in passenger

cars; and

Whereas the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

sponsors National Child Passenger Safety Week, February 10 through 16, 2002, to help remind parents and

care givers that all children should be placed in child

safety seats every time they ride in a car or truck: Now,

therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the Congress commends the National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration for its efforts to remind parents and care givers to use child safety seats and seat belts

when transporting children in vehicles and for sponsoring National Child Passenger Safety Week, February 10 through

16, 2002.

Passed the House of Representatives February 12,

2002.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Hemalthadevi Tarikere, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Posner, J.), rendered August 29, 1989, convicting her of grand larceny in the second degree and offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (20 counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The charges against the defendant, a physician, arose out of allegations that she billed Medicaid for "Specialist Consultations” when none had been made and "unusual travel” expenses when none were incurred. Viewing the evidence in a light *661most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621), we find it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence adduced at trial established that the defendant collected over $100,000 for consultations that never took place and $3,000 for travel expenses that were not incurred *(see, People v Albanese,*144 AD2d 952; *People v Varas,*110 AD2d 646, 648). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

Additionally, we find that defendant’s contention that she was prejudiced by the trial court’s questioning of the People’s witness, Elizabeth Lanigan, to be without merit. The trial court’s questioning of this witness merely served to clarify the voluminous documentary evidence already presented to the jury *(see, People v Witherspoon,*157 AD2d 811). Accordingly, we find that the court acted properly in an effort to clarify confusing documents and facilitate the orderly and expeditious progress of the trial *(see, People v Yut Wai Tom,*53 NY2d 44, 55). Kunzeman, J. P., Balletta, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.