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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wireless Telecom Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic Report"),
I, James M. Johnson, 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 Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

                                              /s/ James M. Johnson
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              James M. Johnson
                                              Chief Executive Officer
                                              August 10, 2006

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-60085

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff−Appellee,

versus

RICKEY ROBERTSON, Also Known as Slick Rick,

Defendant−Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

No. 3:17-CR-16-1

Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rickey Robertson pleaded guilty of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking. 

He appeals his within-guidelines sentence of 188 months, asserting that it is 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 3, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-60085 Document: 00514745966 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/03/2018
No. 18-60085

2

substantively unreasonable because it fails to account for the need to avoid 

unwarranted disparities between his sentence and his co-defendant’s. Robertson properly preserved his objection, so we review for abuse of discretion. Gall 

v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 49-51 (2007); see also United States v. Peltier, 

505 F.3d 389, 391−92 (5th Cir. 2015).

Sentences within the properly calculated guidelines are presumed to be 

substantively reasonable. United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 

2009). Moreover, the court infers from such a sentence “that the district court 

has considered all the factors for a fair sentence set forth in the Guidelines.” 

United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2005). The presumption of 

reasonableness is rebutted only on a showing that the sentence does not 

account for a factor that should receive significant weight, it gives significant 

weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or it represents a clear error in judgment in balancing sentencing factors. Cooks, 589 F.3d at 186.

The district court considered the facts and circumstances, the arguments 

of counsel for a below-guidelines sentence, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

factors—including specific consideration of the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities—in finding that a within-guidelines sentence was appropriate. See Mares, 402 F.3d at 519. Robertson’s contentions amount to no more 

than a mere disagreement with the court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors, 

which is insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See Cooks, 

589 F.3d at 186. Moreover, this court will not reweigh the § 3553(a) factors 

because “the sentencing judge is in a superior position to find facts and judge 

their import under § 3553(a) with respect to a particular defendant.” United 

States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008); see also United 

States v. Guillermo Balleza, 613 F.3d 432, 435 (5th Cir. 2010).

The judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-60085 Document: 00514745966 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/03/2018
(b) 

(4)

(b) 

(4)

(b) 

(4)



(b) (4)
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART SIX

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

TITLE I

INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

CHAPTER 3

THE UNION'S ADVISORY BODIES

SECTION 1

SECTION 1

THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE

Article 303

(ex Article 260 TEC)

(ex Article 260 TEC)

The Committee shall elect its chairman and officers from among its members for a term of two and a half years.

It shall adopt its Rules of Procedure.

The Committee shall be convened by its chairman at the request of the European Parliament, the Council or of the Commission. It may also meet on its own initiative.

---
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 12-512V

Filed: May 30, 2013

Not for Publication

*************************************

AUTUMN LAIDLAW, legal representative *

of a minor child, EMILY STONE, *

* 

 Petitioner, * 

* Attorneys’ Fees & Costs Decision

v. * Based on Stipulation of Fact

* 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 * 

Respondent. *

*

************************************* 

Verne E. Paradie, Jr., Lewiston, ME, for petitioner.

Lara A. Englund, Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On May 30, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation of fact in which they agreed on an 

appropriate amount for attorneys’ fees and costs in this case. 

In accordance with the General Order #9 requirement, petitioner’s counsel asserts that 

petitioner did not incur any costs in pursuit of her petition.

 

1Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master's action in this

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal 

Claims's website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 

2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be 

made available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that 

is privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a 

clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify 

and move to redact such information prior to the document=s disclosure. If the special master, upon 

review, agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special 

master shall redact such material from public access.
2

Petitioner informally submitted an Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs to 

respondent. During informal discussions, respondent raised objections to certain items. Based 

on these objections, petitioner now amends her request for attorneys’ fees and costs and requests

$11,453.45 in attorneys’ fees and costs. Respondent does not object to the reduced amount. The 

undersigned finds this amount to be reasonable. Accordingly, the court awards $11,453.45,

representing reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs. The award shall be in the form of a 

check payable jointly to petitioner and Paradie, Sherman & Worden, P.A. in the amount of 

$11,453.45.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of 

the court is directed to enter judgment herewith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 30, 2013 /s/ Laura D. Millman 

 Laura D. Millman

 Special Master

 

2

Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or 

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Equus II Incorporated
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 (the Report), I, Sam P. Douglass, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | To my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: August 13, 2004 |  | /s/ Sam P. Douglass    
|                       |  | Sam P. Douglass        
|                       |  | Chairman               
|                       |  | Chief Executive Officer
-82 -81 -80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75

 36

 37

 38

 39

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

07/27

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 27 Jul 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.06 N 76.88 W Meters AGL
# C_2016202EN.01004501.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/45

---

Article 55

(ex Article 53 TEU)

(ex Article 53 TEU)

1.   This Treaty, drawn up in a single original in the Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish languages, the texts in each of these languages being equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the Italian Republic, which will transmit a certified copy to each of the governments of the other signatory States.

2.   This Treaty may also be translated into any other languages as determined by Member States among those which, in accordance with their constitutional order, enjoy official status in all or part of their territory. A certified copy of such translations shall be provided by the Member States concerned to be deposited in the archives of the Council.

---
#### SAM LIVIERI *v.*KEN RICH ET AL.

(AC 20177)

Landau, Schaller and Spear, Js.

Submitted on briefs June 14

officially released July 18, 2000

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
SCION – a  new business platform that is modernizing USDA’s specialty crops inspection and auditing service delivery

USDA eAuthentication Instructions

Scion splash page

1

SCION

A new automated platform that supports USDA specialty crops inspection and auditing operational and business processes

End-to-end business process support, from service requests to inspection/auditing, reporting and certification, and billing 

Replaces previous standalone legacy systems, e.g., FEIRS and BIIS

USDA eAuthentication Required!

All SCION users, including our applicants, Federal/State cooperators, and even our employees, must have USDA Level 2 eAuthentication

eAuthentication is USDA’s identity verification system that allows you to access USDA websites and applications, including SCION

eAuthentication keeps your data secure 

USDA eAuthentication Required!

USDA eAuthentication allows SCION users to:

Access SCION (and other USDA web applications and services) via the Internet

Use SCION via the Internet to set up accounts, submit service requests, see certificates and other data, and receive billing statements

How to Get eAuthenticated

Go to the USDA eAuthentication website: http://www.eauth.usda.gov

Click Manage Account

Click Update Account

How to Get eAuthenticated

If you got to the eAuth log in page from VSPS, the screen will look like this

Click Update Account

Click Continue to Login Page

How to Get eAuthenticated

Enter your eAuth userID and password

Click Log In with Password

How to Get eAuthenticated

Click the ‘Verify My Identity’ link 

How to Get eAuthenticated

Select ‘Verify my identity online (recommended)’

Click I Agree 

How to Get eAuthenticated

Complete all fields and click Continue 

How to Get eAuthenticated

Answer all 5 identity verification questions 

How to Get eAuthenticated

If you cannot verify your identity using the On-Line Self-Service you will have to visit a Local Registration Authority (LRA) in person to validate your identity and get your Level 2 account activated. 

Find the closest LRA here: http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov

Please call ahead to ensure a trained LRA team member will be available at the time you plan to visit. 

Bring your government-issued photo ID (e.g., drivers license) and present it in person to an LRA who can activate your account with Level 2 access. 

# image1.jpg

# image2.png

# image3.png

# image4.png

# image5.emf

# image6.png

# image7.png

# image8.png

# image9.png

# image10.png

# image11.png

# image12.png
# C_2016202EN.01016101.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/161 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/161

---

Article 260

(ex Article 228 TEC)

(ex Article 228 TEC)

1.   If the Court of Justice of the European Union finds that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties, the State shall be required to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court.

2.   If the Commission considers that the Member State concerned has not taken the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court, it may bring the case before the Court after giving that State the opportunity to submit its observations. It shall specify the amount of the lump sum or penalty payment to be paid by the Member State concerned which it considers appropriate in the circumstances.

If the Court finds that the Member State concerned has not complied with its judgment it may impose a lump sum or penalty payment on it.

This procedure shall be without prejudice to Article 259.

3.   When the Commission brings a case before the Court pursuant to Article 258 on the grounds that the Member State concerned has failed to fulfil its obligation to notify measures transposing a directive adopted under a legislative procedure, it may, when it deems appropriate, specify the amount of the lump sum or penalty payment to be paid by the Member State concerned which it considers appropriate in the circumstances.

If the Court finds that there is an infringement it may impose a lump sum or penalty payment on the Member State concerned not exceeding the amount specified by the Commission. The payment obligation shall take effect on the date set by the Court in its judgment.

---
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** Honorable Wesley E. Brown, Senior District Judge, U nited States District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by design ation. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### AUG 31 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
CANOVA GEORGE SINGLETON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA; FRANK KEATING, Governor; STEVE HARGETT; JAMES L. SAFFLE, Deputy Warden,

Defendants-Appellees. No. 97-6372 (D.C. No. CIV-97-356-C) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TACHA andMcKAY , Circuit Judges, and BROWN, ** Senior District Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of-2-

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Canova George Singleton appeals from the district c ourt’s grant of summary judgment to defendants on his civil rights claims, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As before the district court, on appeal Mr. Singleton contends that: a) under Oklahoma’s Prison Overcrowding Emergency Po wers Act,

credits are granted some prisoners--but not others- -resulting in overcrowding and double-celling, which, combined wi th a lack of health screening, results in risk of harm to prison ers in violation of their equal protection rights; b) Oklahoma has conspired to deny prisoners, includi ng Mr. Singleton, the right to vote; c) Oklahoma’s prison classification system creates aclass of prisoners in violation of due process and equal protection an d has the effect of increasing Mr. Singleton’s sentence; and d) Defendants have retaliated against Mr. Singleton for the filing of an administrative grievance. We review the district court’s grant of summary jud gment de novo, applying the same legal standard used by that courtpursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.-3-

56(c). See Kaul v. Stephan , 83 F.3d 1208, 1212 (10th Cir. 1996). Further, we construe Mr. Singleton’s pro se pleadings liberally . See Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). After careful review of the entire record on appeal in light of these standards, and after due consideration of the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the district court correctly decided this case

. The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge
# C_2016202EN.01002201.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/22

---

Article 14

1.   The European Parliament shall, jointly with the Council, exercise legislative and budgetary functions. It shall exercise functions of political control and consultation as laid down in the Treaties. It shall elect the President of the Commission.

2.   The European Parliament shall be composed of representatives of the Union's citizens. They shall not exceed seven hundred and fifty in number, plus the President. Representation of citizens shall be degressively proportional, with a minimum threshold of six members per Member State. No Member State shall be allocated more than ninety-six seats.

The European Council shall adopt by unanimity, on the initiative of the European Parliament and with its consent, a decision establishing the composition of the European Parliament, respecting the principles referred to in the first subparagraph.

3.   The members of the European Parliament shall be elected for a term of five years by direct universal suffrage in a free and secret ballot.

4.   The European Parliament shall elect its President and its officers from among its members.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 140 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 140

To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify 
    those classes of individuals born in the United States who are 
         nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2019

 Mr. King of Iowa (for himself, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Norman, Mr. 
Yoho, Mr. Palazzo, Mr. Perry, Mr. DesJarlais, Mr. Davidson of Ohio, Mr. 
   Brooks of Alabama, Mr. Biggs, Mr. Hice of Georgia, Mr. Babin, Mr. 
  Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Harris, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Conaway, Mr. 
 Weber of Texas, Mr. Webster of Florida, Mr. Grothman, Mr. Rouzer, and 
   Mr. Graves of Missouri) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify 
    those classes of individuals born in the United States who are 
         nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Birthright Citizenship Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH FOR CERTAIN PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED 
              STATES.

    (a) In General.--Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(8 U.S.C. 1401) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The 
        following'';
            (2) by redesignating subsections (a) through (h) as 
        paragraphs (1) through (8), respectively; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b) Definition.--Acknowledging the right of birthright 
citizenship established by section 1 of the 14th amendment to the 
Constitution, a person born in the United States shall be considered 
`subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States for purposes of 
subsection (a)(1) if the person is born in the United States of 
parents, one of whom is--
            ``(1) a citizen or national of the United States;
            ``(2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in 
        the United States whose residence is in the United States; or
            ``(3) an alien performing active service in the armed 
        forces (as defined in section 101 of title 10, United States 
        Code).''.
    (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a)(3) shall 
not be construed to affect the citizenship or nationality status of any 
person born before the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```