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

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 135)**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Eschelon Telecom, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the“Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Richard A. Smith,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that tohis knowledge:

 

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

 

(2)          The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and result of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| Sign:                                  | /S/ | Richard S. Smith |   |
|----------------------------------------|-----|------------------|--------|
| Richard A. Smith                       |
| President and Chief  Executive Officer |
| June    ,  2004    |

 

----
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ALBERT LEE GREER, SR., ) 

) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) Civil Action No. 21-2193 (UNA)

) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, sues the United States under the Privacy 

Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, to compel (1) the U.S. Probation Department in Detroit, Michigan, to 

correct his presentence investigation report, and (2) the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to “remove 

all references to ‘Arson Fires’” from his central inmate file. Mot. to Correct Erroneous Info. 

Contained Within Presentence Investigation Report Pursuant to the Provisions of the Privacy Act 

(5 U.S.C. § 552) (“Complaint”) at 2, ECF No. 1. The Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, and dismiss this action under the screening provisions of 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A (requiring immediate dismissal of a prisoner’s complaint that fails to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted). 

It is established that “United States Probation Offices are units of the federal courts and 

therefore are not subject to the Privacy Act.” Ramirez v. Dep’t of Just., 594 F. Supp. 2d 58, 62 

(D.D.C. 2009), aff'd sub nom. Ramirez v. U.S. Dep't of Just., No. 10-5016, 2010 WL 4340408 

(D.C. Cir. Oct. 19, 2010) (citing cases)). And although the Privacy Act generally “gives an 

individual the right to request amendment of his records” maintained by an Executive branch 

AUG. 24, 2021
2

agency, BOP has properly exempted its “inmate records systems,” including those containing

presentence reports, “from the amendment provisions of the Act.” White v. U.S. Prob. Off., 148 

F.3d 1124, 1125 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d); 28 C.F.R. § 16.97(a)

(other citations omitted)). Consequently, Plaintiff “is barred from seeking amendment of his 

presentence report” via the Privacy Act. Id.; see accord Lane v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 442 F. 

App’x 578 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (“The Bureau of Prisons has exempted its inmate 

records systems from the Privacy Act’s accuracy and amendment provisions.”) (citations 

omitted)). A separate order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

_________/s/___________

EMMET G. SULLIVAN

Date: August 24, 2021 United States District Judge
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 38 (Monday, February 26, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 14068]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03935]


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

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Thursday, February 29, 2024, at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: Hybrid meeting: 1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC (12th 
floor) and virtual.

    Note: For those attending the meeting in person, current COVID-
19 safety protocols for visitors, which are based on the CDC COVID-
19 hospital admission level in Washington, DC, will be updated on 
the Commission's contact page by the Monday before the meeting. See 
the contact page at https://www.fec.gov/contact/. If you would like 
to virtually access the meeting, see the instructions below.


STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public, subject to the above-
referenced guidance regarding the COVID-19 hospital admission level and 
corresponding health and safety procedures. To access the meeting 
virtually, go to the Commission's website www.fec.gov and click on the 
banner to be taken to the meeting page.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Draft Advisory Opinion 2024-01: Texas Majority PAC
Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum on the 1199 SEIU United 
Healthcare Workers East Federal Political Action Fund (A21-10)
Management and Administrative Matters

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
    Individuals who plan to attend in person and who require special 
assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable 
accommodations, should contact Laura E. Sinram, Secretary and Clerk, at 
(202) 694-1040 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d7a4b2b4a5b2a3b6a5ae97b1b2b4f9b0b8a1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="394a5c5a4b5c4d584b40795f5c5a175e564f">[email protected]</span></a>, at least 72 hours prior to the 
meeting date.

(Authority: Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b)

     Submitted: February 21, 2024.
Laura E. Sinram,
Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2024-03935 Filed 2-22-24; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### MILLER v. MILLER’S ADM’X et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 19, 1953.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 30, 1953.

Marvin Cornett, Stanford, for appellant.

Ernest G. Baxter, Stanford, for appel-lees.

STANLEY, Commissioner.

The appellant, Mrs. Mary Miller, sued her daughter, Mrs.'Mary King, as adminis-tratrix of the estate of Charles Miller, also Mrs. King’s husband and the plaintiff’s husband as sureties on her bond to recover $2,750 alleged to be the plaintiff’s one-half of assets not accounted for in the settlement. The court heard the witnesses orally, decided against the plaintiff, and she appeals.

Mr. and Mrs. Miller lived in Lincoln County before moving to Cincinnati. They had conveyed their farm and all its equipment and provender on hand to their son, Charles Miller, in consideration of his taking care of them. A few years afterward, in October, 1946, Charles Miller was killed in a motorcycle accident, and his sister, Mrs. King, a resident of Kentucky, qualified as administratrix of his estate. An inventory and appraisement were made, although it, seems that a certain bank, .account and some notes- were omitted. Per,haps this was for the purpose of concealment in contemplation of suits for damages against the estate which were later settled. But all this property was included in the administratrix’ settlement duly filed in the county court in August, 1948. At that time the father and mother each received $2,319.33 from the personal estate.

Mrs. Miller, an elderly woman who speaks no English, had actively participated in getting together and dividing the property of her deceased -son. Sometime later she and her husband separated and began living with different daughters in Cincinnati. This seems to be the root of this unfortunate family law suit. It appears quite satisfactorily that the items of property *294claimed in the suit as not having been accounted for had been claimed by the parents on the ground that title to it had been restored by reason of the failure of the consideration for the conveyance of the land and transfer of the personalty because of the son’s early death. These items were sold at an auction and the proceeds, paid directly to the father. They make up all or nearly all of the claim asserted against the administratrix and sureties on her bond. If the plaintiff’s husband did not.deal fairly with her, she must look to him for remedy. He was before the court in this suit by constructive service only. We are not convinced that the decision of the court on what are wholly issues of fact is erroneous.

The judgment is affirmed.
Dismiss and Opinion Filed July 31, 2013 

# S

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-12-01404-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF M.R., JR., ET AL.
On Appeal from the 304th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 10-00100-W

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang-Miers and Lewis Opinion by Chief Justice Wright By notice dated June 5, 2013, th e Court notified appe llant that his brief was overdue. We
directed appellant to file his brief and an ex tension motion within ten days, and warned that

failure to do so would result in dismissal of the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1). To date,
appellant has not filed his brief, an extension motion, or communicated w ith the Court regarding
the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

121404F.P05 /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF M.R., JR., ET AL.

No. 05-12-01404-CV On Appeal from the 304th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 10-00100-W. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright, Justices Lang-Miers a nd Lewis participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. We ORDERED that appellee the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services recover its costs of this appeal, if any, fr om appellant Michael Reeves, Sr.

Judgment entered July 31, 2013

/Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
#### Darrell Odell DUFFY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27923.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 11, 1956.

Howze & Howze, Murray J. Howze, Monahans, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DICE, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted of wilfully deserting, neglecting and refusing to provide for the support and maintenance of his minor child, and assessed punishmeñt at four months’ confinement in the county jail.

The indictment was returned by the grand jury on June 23, 1954, and alleged that the offense was committed on or about the 21st day of March, 1954.

The State’s evidence shows that appellant and his former wife, Mrs. Myrtle Olene Eudy, were married in 1952, and to the marriage union was born a child, Pamela Sherlene Duffy, who was about two and one-half years of age at the time of the trial. It is further shown that appellant .and his wife separated in March, 1954, when he left her and the child and went to New Mexico. Thereafter, on May 22, 1954, the wife was granted a divorce from appellant and awarded custody of the child, and in the decree appellant was ordered to contribute $83.33 per month for the support,of the child.

Mrs. Eudy testified that after the separation she worked, at a cafe at a salary of $28.50 per week, and that since the separation arid divorce appellant had contributed nothing toward the support of the child except $50 which she had received through a Justice of the Peace in New Mexico in a garnishment of appellant’s check. She further testified that on several occasions after the divorce was granted when she told appellant she needed money for the child’s support he “said he would go to the pen before he would pay it” and also said “he didn’t want to pay it.” She also testified that appellant made at least $500 per month and that he told her he was receiving on an average of $100 per week even while he was sick and unable to work.

Appellant denied that he had wilfully and deliberately refused to support his child and stated that he had never been called upon to support the child. He testified that after he left his wife and child he went to work in New Mexico as an oil field worker at $1.85 per hour and that his top salary was $400 per month, and that he was injured in September, 1954, and had been unable to work since that time. He denied that he had any knowledge of the divorce decree which ordered him to contribute to the support of the child and also denied having told his wife he would not support the child. He further testified .that he had been denied the right to see his child and that he had carried the child some clothes and toys at Christmas which his former wife’s parents would not accept. He also testified that he was willing to support the child and that when he was able he would contribute to her support.

*945We find the evidence sufficient to support the conviction and overrule appellant’s contention that the evidence is insufficient to show that appellant wilfully deserted, neglected and refused to support his minor child.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
Michael C. Robinson, Petitioner,
v. John Adams et aI., Respondents. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil ActionNo.

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED MAY - 52010 Clerk, U.S. District &Bankruptcy Courts forthe District of Columbia 

# 10 (YI'U9

This matter comes before the court on the plaintiffs pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner is incarcerated in Amarillo, Texas, in a facility that is not operatedby the Federal Bureau ofPrisons. He does not identifythe court that sentenced him, but attacks his conviction and sentence claiming ineffective assistance ofcounsel, among otherthings. He does not indicate that he is in prison under a federal sentence, and his prison number indicates that he is not a federal prisoner. Based onthe information provided, the petition will be construed as one filed by a prisoner under a state sentence seeking habeas review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Federal courtreview ofstate convictions is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 only after the exhaustion ofavailable state remedies. 

### See 28 U.S.C. §2254(b)(1). Once the state remedies
are exhausted,"an application for a writ ofhabeas corpus [] made by a person in custody under thejudgment and sentence ofa State court ... may be filed inthe district court for the district wherein such person is in custody or in the district court for the district within which the Statecourt was held which convicted and sentenced [petitioner] and each ofsuch district courts shall have concurrentjurisdictionto entertainthe application." 28 U.S.C. 

### § 2241(d). The petition does not indicate whether the petitionerhas exhausted his state remedies. To the extentthat the prisonerhas exhausted his state remedies, his federal recourse lies inthe United States District Court for the Northern District ofTexas. Because the petitionerhas not established that this Courthasjurisdiction over this petition, it will be dismissed. A separate final order accompanies this memoran

Date:



### 2
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

# **Certifications**

# ** **

I, Geoffrey M. Boyd, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of EschelonTelecom, Inc.,

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)             Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)              Disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of a annual report) that has materially affected, orreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)              All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and

 

b)             Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s control over financial reporting.

 

 
|   | May 16, 2005 |
|--------|-------------------|
|   |              |   |   |
|   |              |   |   |
|   | Sign:             | /S/     Geoffrey  M. Boyd |   |
|   |              | Geoffrey M. Boyd |   |
|   |              | Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Brian T. Beckwith, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Peoples Educational Holdings, Inc.; 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 ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers 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 controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; 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 (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;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 17, 2007   /s/ Brian T. Beckwith Brian T. Beckwith,  President and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 21



PHILLIPS-VAN HEUSEN CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES



The following table lists all of the subsidiaries of Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation and the jurisdiction of incorporation of each subsidiary. Each subsidiary does business under its corporate name indicated in the table.



|Name                                 | State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------
|                                     |                                             
|BassNet, Inc.                        | Delaware                                    
|Calvin Klein, Inc.                   | New York                                    
|Camisas Modernas, S.A.               | Guatemala                                   
|C.A.T. Industrial, S.A. de C.V.      | Honduras                                    
|CK Service Corp.                     | Delaware                                    
|Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc.          | Delaware                                    
|Cluett Peabody Resources Corporation | Delaware                                    
|Confezioni Moda Italia S.r.l.        | Italy                                       
|izod.com inc.                        | Delaware                                    
|Phillips-Van Heusen Canada, Inc.     | Canada                                      
|Phillips-Van Heusen (Far East) Ltd.  | Hong Kong                                   
|Phillips-Van Heusen Puerto Rico LLC  | Delaware                                    
|PVH Europe, Inc.                     | Delaware                                    
|PVH Foreign Holdings Corp.           | Delaware                                    
|PVH Limited                          | United Kingdom                              
|PVH Puerto Rico, Inc.                | Delaware                                    
|PVH Realty Corp.                     | Delaware                                    
|PVH Retail Stores, Inc.              | Delaware                                    
|PVH Superba/Insignia Neckwear, Inc.  | Delaware                                    
|PVH Wholesale Corp.                  | Delaware                                    
|PVH Wholesale New Jersey, Inc.       | Delaware                                    







April 1, 2009