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 Qaurterly Report of Feel Golf Co., Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lee Miller, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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 (15 U.S.C. 78 m or 78o (d)); and2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Feel Golf Co., Inc.
  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
  FEEL GOLF CO., INC.
 /s/  Lee MillerLee Miller
 Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
   Date: November 15, 2010
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0024 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SLADE ALLEN CLAWSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including December 28, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 21 2022

11/21/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0024
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF**

**CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**OF MAX RE CAPITAL LTD.**

This certification is providedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A (the “Form 10-Q/A”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 of Max Re Capital Ltd. (the“Issuer”). 

I, Keith S. Hynes, the Chief Financial Officer of Issuer certify that: 

(i) the Form 10-Q/A fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.78m(a) or 78o(d)); and 

(ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Issuer. 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Issuer and will be retained by the Issuerand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

Dated: November 15, 2006
1.
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-144821) pertaining to the Rush Enterprises, Inc.
2007 Long-Term Incentive Plan;
 2.
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-138557) pertaining to the Rush Enterprises, Inc.
Amended and Restated 1997 Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan;
 3.
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-138556) pertaining to the Rush Enterprises, Inc.
2006 Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan;
 4.
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-121355) pertaining to the Rush Enterprises, Inc.
Long-Term Incentive Plan, the Rush Enterprises, Inc. 2004 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and
Certain Non-Plan Options;
 5.
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-117305) pertaining to the Rush Enterprises, Inc.
Amended and Restated 1997 Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan and the Rush Enterprises,
Inc. Long-Term Incentive Plan;
 6.
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-70451) pertaining to the Rush Enterprises, Inc. 1997
Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan; and
 7.
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-07043) pertaining to the Rush Enterprises, Inc.
Long-Term Incentive Plan.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6460** 

TROY JORDAN , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. JAMES V. BEALE, Warden, Deerfield Correctional Center; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS , Respondents

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 2:14

- cv
- 00614

- HCM

- DEM )

Submitted : September 26, 2016 Decided: October 3, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Troy Jordan, Appellant Pro Se. George Maralan Kelley, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent i n this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Troy Jordan a ppeals the district court ’ s order accepting
the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accord ingly, although we
grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Jordan v. Beale , No.

2:14

- cv
- 00614

- HCM

- DEM (E.D. Va. Jan. 20, 2016) . We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentio ns are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1866 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1866

To amend title 18, United States Code, to clarify Federal jurisdiction 
        over offenses relating to damage to religious property.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 12, 1996

 Mr. Hollings introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 18, United States Code, to clarify Federal jurisdiction 
        over offenses relating to damage to religious property.

    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 ``Church Arson Prevention Act of 
1996''.

SEC. 2. DAMAGE TO RELIGIOUS PROPERTY.

    Section 247 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) so that subsection (b) reads as follows:
    ``(b) The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the 
offense is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce.''; and
            (2) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting ``, racial, or 
        ethnic'' before ``character''.
                                 <all>
```
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-2441

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Roderick Deshawn Stewart, also known as Rod

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

____________

 Submitted: April 16, 2013

Filed: April 22, 2013

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Roderick Stewart directly appeals the judgment of the district court after he 1

pled guilty to a drug charge and was sentenced to a within-Guidelines-range prison

The Honorable Billy Roy Wilson, United States DistrictJudge for the Eastern 1

District of Arkansas.
term. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), this court finds no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Counsel’s motion

to withdraw is granted, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-2-
Exhibit 32.1

Certification under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In
connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Hampton Roads Bankshares, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2011 to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (Report), we, John A. B.
Davies, Jr., Chief Executive Officer, and Stephen P. Theobald, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge:

(a) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(b) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.



/s/ John A. B. Davies, Jr.John A. B. Davies, Jr.Chief Executive OfficerDate: May 16, 2011/s/ Stephen P. TheobaldStephen P. TheobaldChief Financial OfficerDate: May 16, 2011




58
KFS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0453

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

TOSTON GRAY LAFOURNAISE,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time 

to and including September 9, 2021, within which to prepare, serve, and file its 

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 2 2021

08/02/2021

Case Number: DA 19-0453
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Eric A. Danziger, President and Chief Executive Officer of ZipRealty, Inc., certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ZipRealty, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented 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)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusion about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming 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 adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: August 11, 2005 By:  /s/ Eric A. Danziger    Eric A. Danziger    President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 99.1


                    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 PFS Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Registrant") hereby certifies that the Registrant's Form 10-QSB for the three
months ended June 30, 2002 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/Mel E. Green
                                   -------------------------------------------
                                   Name: Mel E. Green
                                   Title: President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: August 14, 2002
Map Created: August 2019

Data Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, LAUS, 2016

Relative Unemployment Rates in Appalachia, 2016

(County Rates as a Percentage of the U.S. Average)

An unemployment rate is the number of unemployed persons as 

a percentage of the civilian labor force. The percent of the U.S. 

average is computed by dividing the county unemployment rate 

by the national average and multiplying by 100. The map uses 

critical breaks such as the national average to organize the data 

into groups of common values.

0 50 100

Miles

GEORGIA

ALABAMA

MISSISSIPPI

SOUTH

CAROLINA

NORTH CAROLINA

VIRGINIA

WEST

VIRGINIA

KENTUCKY

OHIO ILLINOIS INDIANA

WISCONSIN

MICHIGAN

DE

NJ PENNSYLVANIA

MARYLAND

NEW YORK

TENNESSEE

150.0% - 391.4%

100.1% - 149.9%

75.1% - 100.0%

64.5% - 75.0%

Percent of the U.S. Average

U.S. average = 4.9%

Appalachian average = 5.6%

(Critical Breaks Classification)
#### In the Matter of the Complaint of BOCA GRANDE CLUB, INC., for exoneration from or limitation of liability as owner of a 16’ Prindle catamaran sailing vessel hull no. SUR06214M82E, Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alan POLACKWICH, Robert Polackwich, Jonathan Richards, Alphonsus J. Polackwich and Eleanor A. Polackwich, Defendants-Counterclaim Plaintiffs, Stephanie Polackwich, as personal representative of the Estate of Jonathan Richards, Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff-Crossclaim Defendant, O’Day Corporation, Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff-Crossclaim Plaintiff-Crossclaim Defendant, Florida Power & Light Company, Inc., Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff-Crossclaim Defendant-Crossclaim Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant.

No. 92-2391.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

July 12, 1994.

Stuart C. Markman, Kynes & Markman, Tampa, FL, for appellant.

Jack C. Rinard, David F. Pope, Tampa, FL, for appellee.

*

 Honorable Myron H. Bright, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, CARNES, Circuit Judge, and BRIGHT *, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

In light of the Supreme Court’s holding in this case, *Boca Grande Club, Inc. v. Florida Power & Light Co., Inc.,*- U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1472, 128 L.Ed.2d 165 (1994), that “actions for contribution against settling defendants are neither necessary nor permitted,” we find that Florida Power & Light may not pursue its claim for contribution against Boca Grande Club, Inc. (“Boca Grande”). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Boca Grande.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Education

          - [Docket No.: ED-2023-SCC-0192]

# AGENCY:

Office for Finance and Operations (OFO), Department of Education (ED).

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

                    On January 22, 2024, the U.S. Department of Education published a 30-day comment period notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     with FR Doc. 2024-01107 (89 FR 3916, column 1, column 2) seeking public comment for an information collection entitled, “Entry Evidence and Evaluation and Exit Evidence Forms”. The Department will revise related information collection forms. A new 30-day public comment notice will be published.                

The PRA Coordinator, Strategic Collections and Clearance, Office of the Chief Data Officer, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, hereby issues a correction notice as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

Dated: January 22, 2024.

Stephanie Valentine,

PRA Coordinator, Strategic Collections and Clearance, Office of the Chief Data Officer, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.

[FR Doc. 2024-01444 Filed 1-24-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1948 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1948

 To amend section 2241 of title 18, United States Code, to provide for 
              Federal jurisdiction over sexual predators.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 11, 1996

Mr. D'Amato (for himself and Mr. Kerry) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend section 2241 of title 18, United States Code, to provide for 
              Federal jurisdiction over sexual predators.

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

SECTION 1. FEDERAL JURISDICTION OVER RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES.

    Section 2241 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(e) Punishment for Sexual Predators.--(1) Whoever, in a 
circumstance described in paragraph (2) of this subsection--
            ``(A) violates this section; or
            ``(B) engages in conduct that would violate this section, 
        if the conduct had occurred in the special maritime and 
        territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and--
                    ``(i) that conduct is in interstate or foreign 
                commerce;
                    ``(ii) the person engaging in that conduct crossed 
                a State line with intent to engage in the conduct; or
                    ``(iii) the person engaging in that conduct 
                thereafter engages in conduct that is a violation of 
                section 1073(1) with respect to an offense that 
                consists of the conduct so engaged in;
shall be imprisoned for life.
    ``(2) The circumstance referred to in paragraph (1) of this 
subsection is that the defendant has previously been convicted of 
another State or Federal offense for conduct which--
            ``(A) is an offense under this section or section 2242 of 
        this title; or
            ``(B) would have been an offense under either of such 
        sections if the offense had occurred in the special maritime or 
        territorial jurisdiction of the United States.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Veronica McCALLUP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KEMPER COUNTY MESSENGER NEWSPAPER, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-1374.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Jan. 28, 2003.

Before GUY and MOORE, Circuit Judges; and BECKWITH, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Sandra S. Beckwith, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

*ORDER*

Pro se Mississippi prisoner Veronica McCallup appeals a district court judgment that dismissed, without prejudice, *316her civil suit. The case has been referred to this panel pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l). Rules of the Sixth Circuit. We unanimously agree that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

McCallup sued Mississippi government agencies and corporations in Michigan district court, raising multiple claims arising from her allegedly wrongful extradition from Michigan to Mississippi.

The magistrate judge recommended that the district court dismiss McCallup’s suit, without prejudice, for failure to effect service of process. McCallup failed to file timely objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The district court adopted the findings of the magistrate judge and dismissed the suit.

On appeal, McCallup challenges the propriety of the dismissal of her suit. The defendants have not been served.

Upon review, we conclude that McCallup has waived her right to appeal. A party who does not file specific objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, after being advised to do so, waives her right to appeal. *United States v. Walters,*638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir.1981). Exceptional circumstances, however, will warrant an exception to the rule in the interests of justice. *Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 155 & n. 15, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). No exceptional circumstances exist in this case.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is affirmed. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.