alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.2

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 Landmark Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending
September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark A. Herpich, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.

|November 14, 2002 |  |    
|----------------- |  | ---
|                  |  | By:

---

QuickLinks
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law

of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 6/25/96 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. PETER I. PHILIPS, also known as Emaraobebi Idaba,

Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-6310 (D.C. No. CR-92-141-T) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before EBEL, BARRETT, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal.
SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.2

Defendant Peter Philips pled guilty to one count of making false statements on a loan application in August 1992. The district court sentenced him to 149 days’ imprisonment, which was the amount of time already served at the time of sentencing, followed by three years of supervised release. In July 1995, defendant pled guilty to mail fraud. Based on this subsequent conviction, the district court revoked defendant’s supervised release. Although application of the policy statements in Chapter Seven of the sentencing guidelines would yield a sentence in the range of four to ten months for the original conviction, see U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a), the district court sentenced defendant to twenty-four months’ imprisonment, the maximum permitted by statute. Defendant appeals this sentence, arguing that the policy statements should be treated as binding on the district court, absent “extraordinarily compelling reasons” for departure, which he contends are not present in this case. Appellant’s Br. at 5. We recently considered and rejected a similar argument in United States v. Hurst , 78 F.3d 482, 483-84 (10th Cir. 1996). After considering the effect of the Supreme Court’s opinions in Stinson v. United States , 508 U.S. 36 (1993), and Williams v. United States , 503 U.S. 193 (1992), on our earlier decisions, we reaffirmed our holding in United States v. Lee , 957 F.2d 770, 773-74 (10th Cir. 1992), that the policy statements in Chapter Seven concerning the revocation of supervised release are only advisory, and that a trial court’s decision to impose a sentence in excess of that recommended by the policy statements will not be reversed “‘if it can be determined from the record to have been reasoned and3

reasonable.’” Hurst , 78 F.3d at 483-84 (quoting Lee , 957 F.2d at 774). The record here reflects that the district court articulated a number of reasons for its decision to impose a sentence in excess of that recommended in U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a). As the district court’s decision appears to be both “reasoned and reasonable,” Lee , 957 F.2d at 774, it must be upheld. The judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

James E. Barrett Senior Circuit Judge
#### John C. Stowers, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. Wm. M. McGriff, Def*endant in Error.*

Opinion filed Nov. 4, 1915.

Where the evidence wholly fails to support a verdict for the plaintiff, a judgment entered thereon for the plaintiff will be reversed.

Writ of Error to Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; H. P. Branning, Judge.

Judgment reversed.

*H. L. Bussey,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*O. S. Miller,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

McGriff brought assumpsit against Stowers to recover compensation “for procuring and finding a purchaser for * * * property, at no particularly stated price,” “for which services the defendant promised to pay to the plaintiff the sum of five hundred dollars.” There was judgment for plaintiff and the defendant took writ of error. The evidence for the plaintiff below does not show with any degree of definiteness that he found or procured a purchaser for the property, while the evidence for the defendant below is positive, definite and preponderating that the plaintiff did not find the purchaser. The letter from the purchaser to the plaintiff dated several months before the promise sued on was made, has no reference to the purchase of property and the testimony for the plaintiff does not connect *264the letter with the transaction in litigation. The entire evidence indicates that the jury did not give due consideration to the testimony.

The judgment is reversed.

Taylor, C. J., and Shackleford, Cockrell, Whitfield and Ellis, JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

TROY HAYS, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D16-5563

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed April 4, 2018. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Charlotte 

County; Donald H. Mason, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and 

Jean Marie Henne, Special Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Katherine Coombs Cline, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

VILLANTI, MORRIS, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 31.1CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002I, Didier Pietri, Chief Executive Officer of Vialta, Inc., certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Vialta, Inc. (the “registrant”);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 of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;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)) for the registrant and have:          (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;          (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and          (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over 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 the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):          (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and          (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.       Date:August 15, 2005   /s/ Didier Pietri       Didier Pietri      Chief Executive Officer
MICHAEL M. MASSEY

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 3889

______ _______________________/

Opinion filed November 5, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County

. John T. Brown , Judge

.

Michael M. Massey, pro se , Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Lauren L. Gonzalez, Assistant Attorney

General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

SWANSON, MAKAR, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4882 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4882

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat amounts paid for 
  private umbilical cord blood or umbilical cord tissue, or placental 
 blood or placental tissue, banking services as medical care expenses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 25, 2018

 Mr. Paulsen (for himself and Mr. Kind) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat amounts paid for 
  private umbilical cord blood or umbilical cord tissue, or placental 
 blood or placental tissue, banking services as medical care expenses.

    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 ``Family Cord Blood Banking Act''.

SEC. 2. AMOUNTS PAID FOR PRIVATE UMBILICAL CORD BLOOD OR UMBILICAL CORD 
              TISSUE, OR PLACENTAL BLOOD OR PLACENTAL TISSUE, BANKING 
              SERVICES TREATED AS MEDICAL CARE EXPENSES.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 213(d) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (defining medical care) is amended by striking 
``or'' at the end of subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the 
end of subparagraph (D) and inserting ``, or'', and by inserting after 
subparagraph (D) the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(E) for private umbilical cord blood or umbilical 
                cord tissue, or placental blood or placental tissue, 
                banking services provided by any accredited bank which 
                is in compliance with the regulations under section 361 
                of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017.
                                 <all>
```
#### RESOLUTION TRUST CORP., Plaintiff, v. DUNMAR CORP. and Michael D. Jones, Defendants-Counterclaim Plaintiffs, The First F.A., Defendant-Counterclaim Defendant, Sherman Dantzler and Jack Shirek, Defendants, and The First F.A. of Orlando and Resolution Trust Corp., Counter-Defendants. Michael D. JONES; Robert S. Guskiewicz; R.S. Futch, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. RESOLUTION TRUST CORP., Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Philip DONLEVY; William Crawford; Robert Stone, Defendants, v. SEMINOLE FLYING AND SOARING, INC., and The First F.A. of Orlando, Third Party Defendants. RESOLUTION TRUST CORP., Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee, v. LAKE PICKETT, LTD., a Florida Limited Partnership; Michael D. Jones, as general partner, d/b/a Lake Pickett, Ltd., a Florida Limited Partnership; Michael D. Jones, individually and as Trustee, Defendants-Counter-Plaintiffs-Appellants, The First F.A. of Orlando, Defendant.

No. 91-3924.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 12, 1994.

Broad and Cassel, Brenda Lee London, Robert D. Gatton, Orlando, FL, for appellants.

*398Giles, Hedrick & Robinson, P.A., Orlando, FL, E. Givens Goodspeed, Kirk K. Van Tine, Baker & Botts, Washington, DC, for appel-lees.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, KRAVITCH, HATCHETT, ANDERSON, EDMONDSON, COX, BIRCH, DUBINA, BLACK and CARNES, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

A member of this court in active service having requested a poll on the suggestion for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in this court in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that the above cause shall be reheard by this court en bane. The previous panel’s opinion is hereby VACATED.
IIB 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4921 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 11, 2018 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 

and Transportation 

AN ACT 

To require the Surface Transportation Board to implement 

certain recommendations of the Inspector General of the 

Department of Transportation. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 4921 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘STB Information Se3 curity Improvement Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENTS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Surface Transportation 

6 Board (in this section referred to as the ‘‘STB’’) shall de7 velop a timeline and plan to implement the recommenda8 tions of the Inspector General of the Department of 

9 Transportation in Report No. FI2018002, including im10 provements— 

11 (1) to identify controls, including risk manage12 ment, weakness remediation, and security authoriza13 tion; 

14 (2) to protect controls, including configuration 

15 management, user identity and access management, 

16 and security training; 

17 (3) to detect controls, including continuous 

18 monitoring; 

19 (4) to respond controls, including incident han20 dling and reporting; 

21 (5) to recover controls for contingency planning; 

22 and 

23 (6) any additional tools that will improve the 

24 implementation of the recommendations. 

25 (b) IMPLEMENTATION.— 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 4921 RFS

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days 

2 after the date of enactment of this Act, the STB 

3 shall submit the plan and timeline developed under 

4 subsection (a) to the Committee on Transportation 

5 and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives 

6 and the Committee on Commerce of the Senate. 

7 (2) REPORT.—The STB shall report annually 

8 to such Committees on the progress on implementa9 tion of the recommendations until the implementa10 tion is complete. 

11 (3) PLAN IMPLEMENTATION.—The STB shall 

12 designate an individual to implement the plan devel13 oped under subsection (a). 

14 SEC. 3. NO ADDITIONAL FUNDS AUTHORIZED. 

15 No additional funds are authorized to carry out the 

16 requirements of this Act. Such requirements shall be car17 ried out using amounts otherwise authorized. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 10, 2018. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
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 NexHorizon Communications,  Inc. (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,
Calvin D. Smiley,  Sr.  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 and belief:

           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.


Dated: March 28, 2008



 /s/ Calvin D. Smiley, Sr.
--------------------------
Calvin D. Smiley Sr., President and CEO
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

JT/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALFREDO GARCIA-MARTINEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-72908

Agency No. A075-687-238

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 16, 2010** 

Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. 

Alfredo Garcia-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second

motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

FILED

MAR 25 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
JT/Research 2 07-72908

an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d

770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for

review.

Garcia-Martinez has waived any challenge to the BIA’s dispositive

conclusion that his second motion to reopen was untimely and number-barred. See

Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not

specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua

sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Ekimian v.

INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).

To the extent that Garcia-Martinez challenges the agency’s previous orders,

we lack jurisdiction because this petition for review is not timely as to those orders. 

See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Garcia-Martinez’s contention that the BIA abused its discretion by

incorrectly construing his motion, in the alternative, as a request for reinstatement

of voluntary departure is unavailing. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MA Y 27, 2015

NO. 03

- 14

- 00563

- CR

Tarsha Yvonne Wiley, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JU STICES GOODWIN AND F IELD MODIFIED AND, AS MODIFIED, AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment of adjudication signed by the tr i a l court

. Having reviewed
the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgment of adjudication but that there was clerical error requiring correction.
Therefore, the C ourt modifies the tri al court’s judgment of adjudication to reflect that appellant’s
“Plea to the Motion to Adjudicate” was “Not True” and to reflect that the trial court found that
appellant violated the terms and conditions of supervision as alleged in paragraphs A through J
of the State’s motion to adjudicate . The Court affirms the judgment of adjudication as modified.
Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4758 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4758

  To amend the Federal Reserve Act to require the Federal Open Market 
   Committee to establish interest rates on balances maintained at a 
            Federal Reserve Bank by depository institutions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 10, 2018

  Ms. Tenney introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Federal Reserve Act to require the Federal Open Market 
   Committee to establish interest rates on balances maintained at a 
            Federal Reserve Bank by depository institutions.

    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 ``FOMC Policy Responsibility Act''.

SEC. 2. INTEREST RATES ON BALANCES MAINTAINED AT A FEDERAL RESERVE BANK 
              BY DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS ESTABLISHED BY FEDERAL OPEN 
              MARKET COMMITTEE.

    Subparagraph (A) of section 19(b)(12) of the Federal Reserve Act 
(12 U.S.C. 461(b)(12)(A)) is amended by inserting ``established by the 
Federal Open Market Committee'' after ``rate or rates''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 207 (Thursday, October 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 65182]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26369]

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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, October 31, 2012, 10:00 a.m.-11:00 a.m.

PLACE: Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, 
Maryland.

STATUS: Commission Meeting--Open to the Public.

Matters To Be Considered: Briefing Matter: Safety Standard for Bedside 
Sleepers.
    A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at www.cpsc.gov/webcast
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: October 23, 2012.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-26369 Filed 10-23-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```