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




                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

   Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)


         The  undersigned   executive   officer  of  WVS  Financial  Corp.  (the
"Registrant")  hereby certifies that the Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended June 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information  contained
therein fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and
results of operations of the Registrant.




                                                /s/ David J. Bursic
                                                --------------------------------
                                                David J. Bursic
                                                President and
                                                Chief Executive Officer


Date:  September 29, 2008


Note:    A signed original of this written statement  required by Section 906 of
         the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act has been provided to WVS Financial  Corp.  and
         will be retained by WVS Financial Corp. and furnished to the Securities
         and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 31, 2017

a0123 

# Order

Clerk January 31, 2017

153776 & (24)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 153776

COA: 331373

Macomb CC: 2015

- 001777

- FH;

JOSEPH WILLIAM INWOOD, 2015

- 001779

- FH

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

By order of December 7, 2016, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer

the application for leave to app eal the April 5, 2016 order of the Court of Appeals. On

order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is

again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal,

we VACATE the sente nce of the Macomb Circuit Court in Case No. 2015

- 001779

- FH,

and we REMAND this case to the trial court for resentencing. The prosecuting attorney

has conceded that the trial court erred by assigning 50 points under Offense Variable

(OV) 11, MCL 777.41. B ecause correcting the OV score would change the applicable

guidelines range, resentencing is required. People v Kimble , 470 Mich 305 (2004). In all

other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the

remaining questions shoul d be reviewed by this Court. The motion to hold the

application in abeyance is DENIED.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
#### Robert WARE, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 01-5003.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Jan. 31, 2003.

Before MARTIN, Chief Judge; MERRITT and LAY,* Circuit Judges.

*

 The Honorable Donald P. Lay, United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

*ORDER*

Robert Ware, Jr., a pro se federal prisoner, appeals a district court judgment denying his motion to vacate sentence filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. RApp. P. 34(a).

In March 1997, a federal jury found Ware guilty of conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute cocaine and conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and unlawful distribution and possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court sentenced Ware to 360 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. On appeal, a panel of this court affirmed Ware’s conviction and sentence. *United States v. Ware,*161 F.3d 414, 425 (6th Cir.1998).

In his motion to vacate sentence, Ware claimed that; 1) in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the government should have specified the amount of drugs in each count charged in the indictment and that the court should have submitted the issue of the weight of the drugs to the jury; 2) the indictment violated the Double Jeopardy Clause; 3) the base offense level was set according to an unconstitutional standard; and 4) counsel rendered ineffective assistance.

The district court denied Ware’s motion to vacate and granted Ware a certificate of appealability with respect to the issue of whether the Supreme Court’s holding in *Apprendi*should have been retroactively applied in Ware’s case. This court denied Ware’s partial application for a certificate of appealability with respect to the issues not certified by the district court.

On appeal, Ware reasserts that the Supreme Court’s holding in *Apprendi*should be retroactively applied in his case. He also reasserts that counsel rendered ineffective assistance and that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to sentence him. However, the only issue certified on appeal is whether *Ap-prendi*is retroactive to Ware’s case. The case was held in abeyance pending resolution of the retroactive application of the rule announced in *Apprendi.*

*352While this case was being held in abeyance, a panel of this court determined that the rule of *Apprendi*is not retroactively applicable to an initial § 2255 motion like Ware’s. *Goode v. United States,*305 F.3d 378, 385 (6th Cir.2002).

Accordingly, the case is hereby returned to the active docket and the district court’s judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF AVIVA PETROLEUM INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF
DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           2,041
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,750
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        721
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,794
<PP&E>                                          58,937
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,991
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  42,944
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,408
<BONDS>                                          5,210
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,574
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,656
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    42,944
<SALES>                                         13,750
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,750
<CGS>                                           12,173
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,173
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 814
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (26)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       911
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (937)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (937)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 333-12717 and 333-48823) pertaining to the Novoste Corporation
Stock Option Plan and Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan and Non-Employee
Director Stock Option Plan of our report dated February 9, 1999 with respect to
the financial statements of Novoste Corporation included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1998.




                                            ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
February 9, 1999
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1580

To provide funding for community-oriented policing, to reduce funding for

the Department of Defense, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 29 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 28), 1996

Mr. KERRY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide funding for community-oriented policing, to reduce funding for the Department of Defense, and for

other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF FUNDS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any provision of

5 the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1996

6 (Public Law 104–61), the Secretary of Defense shall

7 transfer $6,500,000,000 of unobligated funds appro8 priated under such Act for fiscal year 1996 to the Violent

9 Crime Reduction Trust Fund established under section
2

•S 1580 IS

1 310001 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforce2 ment Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211).

3 (b) ALLOCATION.—The Secretary of Defense shall al4 locate the amount transferred under subsection (a) from

5 among any programs in the Department of Defense for

6 which funding was not requested in the 1996 budget re7 quest of the President.

8 SEC. 2. FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY-ORIENTED POLICING

9 PROGRAMS.

10 The amount transferred under section 1 shall only

11 be used for community-oriented policing programs under

12 section 1701(b) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe

13 Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd(b)).

Æ
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subscription (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Vialta, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company),
does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

(1)   the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2003 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the financial
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and

(2)   the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.

Dated: November 13, 2003
    
    By:
    
    /s/ William M. ScharninghausenWilliam M. ScharninghausenChief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Vilata, Inc. and will be retained by Vialta, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilton Felipe BELTRE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-7598.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 16, 2003.

Decided Jan. 24, 2003.

Wilton Felipe Beltre, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United *156States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Wilton Felipe Beltre, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion and his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). As to claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the movant can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’ ” *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)), *cert. denied,*534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Beltre has not made the requisite showing. *See United States v. Beltre,*No. CR-96-197; CA-01-297-5-F (E.D.N.C. May 16 & June 13, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1558 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1558

  To provide for reimbursement of States, political subdivisions, and 
  persons that donated services, material, funds, or other things to 
      allow the continued operation, during a period of time when 
 appropriations were not available for the purpose, of all or any part 
    of a public educational or recreational facility, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 6, 1996

  Mr. McCain introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for reimbursement of States, political subdivisions, and 
  persons that donated services, material, funds, or other things to 
      allow the continued operation, during a period of time when 
 appropriations were not available for the purpose, of all or any part 
    of a public educational or recreational facility, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. REIMBURSEMENT OF STATES, POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS, AND PRIVATE 
              PERSONS FOR DONATIONS MADE TO ALLOW CONTINUED OPERATION 
              OF PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES.

    (a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``public educational or 
recreational facility'' means a unit of the national park system or 
other Federal facility established for the purpose of providing 
educational or recreational opportunities to the general public, for 
the operation of which funds were made available by H.R. 1977, 104th 
Congress, 1st Session, as passed by the Senate and the House of 
Representatives.
    (b) Reimbursement.--Subject to the availability of appropriations, 
the head of any department, agency, or other entity to which a State, 
political subdivision, or person donated services, material, funds, or 
any other thing to allow the continued operation, during a period of 
time when appropriations were not available for such purpose, of all or 
any part of a public educational or recreational facility, shall, at 
the request of the donor, reimburse the donor for the expenses 
reasonably incurred by the donor or the reasonable value of the thing 
donated, as determined by the head of the department, agency, or other 
entity.
    (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
Exhibit 32.1 Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

I, Kevin R. Ruark, Chief Executive Officer of Family Home Health Services Inc.
(the "registrant"), have executed this certification for furnishing to the
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the filing with the
Commission of the registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period
ended September 30, 2005 (the "Report"). I hereby certify 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 of
the registrant as of and for the end of that period.


November 14, 2005                        /s/ Kevin R. Ruark
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Kevin R. Ruark
                                         Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit
99.1





Certification



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, the undersigned officer of Mission Broadcasting of Wichita Falls, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June
30, 2001 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                    |  |    
|------------------- |  | ---
|                   
|Dated: May 28, 2003 |  | By:
|                    |  |    



The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
##### Table of Contents



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 Date of report (Date of earliest event reported): March 17, 2009
 I-FLOW CORPORATION
  Delaware
(State or Other Jurisdiction 
of Incorporation)
    
    0-18338
(Commission
File Number)
    
    33-0121984
(IRS Employer
Identification No.)
 20202 Windrow Drive
 Lake Forest, California 92630
 (949) 206-2700
  o
 o
 o
 o




---



TABLE OF CONTENTS  Item 8.01 Other Events.Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.SIGNATUREExhibit IndexEX-99.1    Table of Contents  
 Item 8.01 Other Events.
   
 Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.
   ExhibitNo.
    
    Description of Exhibit99.1
    
    Press Release of I-Flow Corporation dated March 17, 2009.
 Forward-Looking Statements
  2




---



##### Table of Contents



3




---



##### Table of Contents



SIGNATURE
   I-FLOW CORPORATIONBy:
    /s/ James R. TalevichName:
    James R. TalevichTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer 4




---



##### Table of Contents



Exhibit Index
 ExhibitNo.
    
    Description of Exhibit99.1
    
    Press Release of I-Flow Corporation dated March 17, 2009.
# Uranium Watch
76 South Main Street, # 7 | P.O. Box 344 Moab, Utah 84532 435- 26O-8384

June 10, 2014 via electronic mail Mr. Reid Rosnick Radiation Protection Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters Ariel Rios Building Mail Code: 6608J 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, D.C. 20460 rosnick.reid@epa.gov

Re: Request for Extension of Comment Period and Request for Hearing: Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2008–0218. Comments on Proposed Rule: Revisions to National Emission Standards for Radon Emissions From Operating Mill Tailings (40 C.F.R. Part 61 Subpart W). 79 Fed. Reg. 25388, May 2, 2014. Dear Mr. Rosnick: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION O F TIME TO SUBMIT COMMENTS Uranium Watch requests a 60-day extension of the time period to submit comments on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Proposed Revisions to National Emission Standards for Radon Emissions From Operating Mill Tailings, 49 C.F.R. Part 61 Subpart W, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2008–0218. 79 Fed. Reg. 25388, May 2, 2014. The request for a 60-day extensi on of time is based on the following. Proposed Subpart W Factual Bases: One of the EPA’s primary reasons for the proposed elimination of the requirement for radon monitoring and reporting at “existing” mill tailings impoundments (as defined in 40 C.F.R. § 61.251(d)) is the claim that the existing tailings impoundment at the Shootaring Canyon Mill (Garfield County, Utah) has a “synthetic liner.” This claim is not supported by a citation in the proposed rule ordocumentation in the Rulemaking Docket. The fact is that the tailings impoundment for the Shootaring Canyon Mill has a clay liner, not a synthetic liner. 1 This reality means that the EPA has a very shaky factual basis for its determination that, soon, any “existing” conventional tailings impoundments will all meet the standard in 10 C.F.R. § 61.252(b) (1), and, therefore, it is appropriate to eliminate any requirement for radon monitoring at “existing” tailings impoundments. This incorrect factual claim regarding the Shootaring Canyon Mill and other misinformation, misleading information, incomplete information, and outdated information require a commenter to carefully review the proposed rule and supporting documents. Also, the EPA has asked for commenters’ thoughts on various aspects of the proposed rule. These lengthy and detailed research and comment preparations require additional time in order to frame informed comments. REQUEST FOR HEARING I would also request a hearing on Subpart W rulemaking at White Mesa, San Juan County. I will be out of state from mid-June until the week of July 27, so request a hearing at White Mesa after July 27, 2014. Therefore, additional time for comments and hearings are necessary. Thank you for consideration of this request. Sincerely,

Sarah Fields sarah@uraniumwatch.org Reid Rosnick/EPA 2 June 10, 2014

1 http://www.radiationcontrol.utah.gov/Uranium_Mills/uraniumone/docs/2012/March/ DRC-2012-001447.pdf