alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
      32











CERTIFICATIONS
      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 The Bombay Company, Inc. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended April 29, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each
      of
      the undersigned 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 their
      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 presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



















/s/
      DAVID B.
      STEWART                                                                                                  /s/ ELAINE D. CROWLEY


David
      B.
      Stewart                                                                                                                
Elaine D. Crowley


Chief
      Executive
      Officer                                                                                                     
Senior Vice President, Chief Financial


Officer and Treasurer







Dated:
      June 8,
      2006                                                                                                           Dated:
      June 8, 2006
#### NICHOLSON v. STATE.

No. 22350.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 13, 1943.

J. Y. Gray, of Tyler, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a fine of $150 on a charge of driving an automobile on a public highway while intoxicated.

The record is before us without bills of exception.

The procedure is regular and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
EXHIBIT
32





CAREADVANTAGE,
INC


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Pursuant
to, and for purposes only of, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, I, Dennis J. Mouras, Chief
Executive Officer and acting principal financial officer of CareAdvantage, Inc.
(the “Company”), hereby certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of the Company on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii)
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated:
May 11, 2009




/s/ Dennis J. MourasDennis
      J. MourasChief
      Executive Officer and acting Principal Financial
      Officer
Exhibit 32(b)

                Section 1350 Certification (Chief Financial Officer)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Coastal Financial Corporation, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I Jerry L. Rexroad, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, 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 my 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 presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
      as of and for the period covered by the Report.

This Certification is provided as of August 14, 2003.


                                        /s/ Jerry L. Rexroad
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Jerry L. Rexroad
                                        Executive Vice President and Chief
                                        Financial Officer


                                       30
ACCEPTED

12-14-00369-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

8/13/2015 2:02:29 PM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 8/13/2015 2:02:29 PM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
#### EADY v. STATE.

No. 24669.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 15, 1950.

*873None on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of theft of property over the value of $50, and punishment was assessed at five years in the penitentiary.

No statement of facts or bills of exception are found in the record, therefore nothing is presented for review.

All other matters are in due and regular form.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-41421

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KAMAAL DUMAKA LEDAY,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:00-CR-206-1

 

August 16, 2002

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kamaal Dumaka Leday appeals his convictions following a jury

trial of one count of conspiracy to possess cocaine base with

intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and two counts

of possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

Leday argues that the trial evidence was insufficient to

support his convictions. Because Leday failed to move for a
1 United States v. McIntosh, 280 F.3d 479, 483 (5th Cir.

2002).

2 Id. (quoting United States v. Cathey, 259 F.3d 365, 368

(5th Cir. 2001)).

2

judgment of acquittal at the close of evidence, review of his

appellate challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is limited

to determining whether there was a “manifest miscarriage of

justice.”1 Such a miscarriage “occurs only where ‘the record is

devoid of evidence pointing to guilt or contains evidence on a key

element of the offense [that is] so tenuous that a conviction would

be shocking.’”2

The trial evidence established that, on both June 11 and July

7, 1999, a confidential informant (“CI”) paged a man called “K.D.,”

a nickname ascribed to Leday, at a pager number to which Leday

subscribed. Leday subsequently returned the CI’s pages from phone

numbers assigned, respectively, to the houses where the mother of

his child lived and where Leday himself lived, and cocaine base

transactions were arranged. In the first of these transactions, on

June 11, 1999, Leday could not personally deliver the cocaine base

because he was having bedroom furniture delivered to his home, a

fact that was confirmed at trial by a representative of the

furniture store. Leday sent a “partner” named Rodney in his stead

to deliver the cocaine base to the CI and an undercover officer.

In the second transaction, on July 7, 1999, Leday, as identified in

court, personally appeared in a candy-apple red Suburban that was
3

registered to the mother of his child and completed the transaction

with the CI.

In the face of this evidence, Leday has not established a

“manifest miscarriage of justice” with respect to any of the three

counts of conviction. The convictions are AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3472 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3472

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 18, 2014

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 13127 Broadway Street in Alden, New York, as the ``Sergeant Brett E. 
                   Gornewicz Memorial Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. SERGEANT BRETT E. GORNEWICZ MEMORIAL POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 13127 Broadway Street in Alden, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Sergeant Brett E. Gornewicz Memorial Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sergeant 
Brett E. Gornewicz Memorial Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 17, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
**SPECIES DATA_POINTS** **AVG_OBS (ug/m3) AVG_MOD (ug/m3)** **MEAN_BIAS (ug/m3) MEAN_ERROR (ug/m3)** **NMB NME** **MFB MFE** **CORR**

PMTOT 25 27.87 33.14 5.27 11.46 0.19 0.41 0.27 0.44 0.74 PMNH4 25 4.41 3.43 -0.98 1.67 -0.22 0.38 -0.06 0.46 0.75 PMNO3 25 12.00 10.33 -1.67 4.18 -0.14 0.35 -0.03 0.43 0.80 PMSO4 25 1.57 1.09 -0.48 0.67 -0.30 0.43 -0.26 0.45 0.29 PMOTHR 25 1.07 6.32 5.25 5.25 4.90 4.90 1.45 1.45 0.69 PMEC (New) 25 1.72 3.22 1.49 1.50 0.87 0.87 0.64 0.64 0.71 PMOC (New) 25 4.84 6.19 1.34 2.05 0.28 0.42 0.24 0.38 0.61**SPECIES DATA_POINTS** **AVG_OBS (ug/m3) AVG_MOD (ug/m3)** **MEAN_BIAS (ug/m3) MEAN_ERROR (ug/m3)** **NMB NME** **MFB MFE** **CORR**

PMTOT 29 28.29 30.51 2.23 10.52 0.08 0.37 0.17 0.40 0.74 PMNH4 30 3.97 3.18 -0.79 1.75 -0.20 0.44 -0.02 0.52 0.74 PMNO3 30 10.36 9.76 -0.61 3.81 -0.06 0.37 0.06 0.45 0.80 PMSO4 30 1.29 0.90 -0.40 0.57 -0.31 0.44 -0.26 0.41 0.17 PMOTHR 29 0.80 6.20 5.39 5.39 6.70 6.70 1.56 1.56 0.60 PMEC 29 1.56 2.44 0.88 0.95 0.56 0.61 0.48 0.51 0.65 PMOC 29 8.28 5.35 -2.93 3.11 -0.35 0.38 -0.42 0.44 0.73**SPECIES DATA_POINTS** **AVG_OBS (ug/m3) AVG_MOD (ug/m3)** **MEAN_BIAS (ug/m3) MEAN_ERROR (ug/m3)** **NMB NME** **MFB MFE** **CORR**

PMTOT 15 18.00 23.49 5.49 7.96 0.31 0.44 0.30 0.41 0.81 PMNH4 15 2.07 2.07 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.39 0.13 0.46 0.83 PMNO3 15 5.18 5.59 0.42 2.51 0.08 0.48 -0.01 0.51 0.76 PMSO4 15 1.17 1.15 -0.02 0.52 -0.02 0.44 0.20 0.43 0.79 PMOTHR 15 0.78 5.65 4.87 4.87 6.25 6.25 1.54 1.54 0.47 PMEC (New) 15 1.34 2.11 0.77 0.81 0.58 0.61 0.49 0.52 0.72 PMOC (New) 15 4.20 4.89 0.69 1.72 0.16 0.41 0.13 0.36 0.73**SPECIES DATA_POINTS** **AVG_OBS (ug/m3) AVG_MOD (ug/m3)** **MEAN_BIAS (ug/m3) MEAN_ERROR (ug/m3)** **NMB NME** **MFB MFE** **CORR**

PMTOT 15 30.40 22.49 -7.91 10.04 -0.26 0.33 -0.23 0.38 0.79 PMNH4 15 4.42 2.85 -1.56 1.82 -0.35 0.41 -0.26 0.47 0.90 PMNO3 15 12.30 8.93 -3.37 4.30 -0.27 0.35 -0.18 0.43 0.90 PMSO4 15 1.43 0.68 -0.75 0.78 -0.53 0.55 -0.61 0.66 0.15 PMOTHR 15 0.96 4.85 3.90 3.90 4.07 4.07 1.39 1.39 0.49 PMEC (New) 15 1.35 1.17 -0.18 0.40 -0.14 0.30 -0.15 0.33 0.59 PMOC (New) 15 4.89 2.82 -2.07 2.11 -0.42 0.43 -0.54 0.55 0.43

*: The correlation coefficient is "R" instead of "R2" *: NMB: normalized mean bias; NME: normalized mean error; MFB: mean fractional bias; MFE: mean fractional error 

## Bakersfield - California Street

**Fresno - 1st Street**

**Modesto - 14th Street**

**Visalia - North Church Street**
#### DORSEY v. STATE.

No. 23263.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 31, 1945.

Conrad E. Smith and Russell F. Wolters, both of Houston, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of murder and her punishment assessed at ten years in the State penitentiary. She gave notice of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals and was held in jail pending the disposition of her case in the latter court.

It is made known to this court by the affidavit of the sheriff of Harris County who had appellant in charge that after said notice of appeal was given, and pending the appeal, she escaped from his custody and had not voluntarily returned within ten days. See Art. 824, C.C.P., Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P. art. 824.

The appeal is dismissed.
The following Agreements were filed with the Department of Transportation under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. Sections 412 and 414. Answers may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the application.

*Docket Number:*                    OST-2000-6826.                

*Dated Filed:*                    January 27, 2000.                

*Parties:*                    Members of the International Air Transport Association.                

*Subject:*                    PTC3 0408 dated 28 January 2000; Mail Vote 060—Resolution 043i; TC3 Intermediate Class Fares between Japan, Korea and South East Asia—Amend Fares from Singapore to Japan; Intended effective date: 1 April 2000.                

*Docket Number:*                     OST-2000-6830.                

*Dated Filed:*                    January 27, 2000.                

*Parties:*                    Members of the International Air Transport Association.                

*Subject:*                    CAC/27/Meet/008/Expedited/99; Cargo Agency Expedited Resolution 809; Intended effective date: January 1, 2000.                

*Docket Number:*                    OST-2000-6837.                

*Dated Filed:*                    January 28, 2000.                

*Parties:*                    Members of the International Air Transport Association.                

*Subject:*                    CTC Comp 0052 dated 12 August 1997—Mail Vote 875; Resolution 116ss; Airline Justifications; Intended effective date—Upon Government Approvals.                

Dorothy W. Walker,

Federal Register Liaison.

[FR Doc. 00-2775 Filed 2-7-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

I, Michael J. Post, President, Treasurer andChief Executive Officer of Gasel Transportation Lines Inc. (the “Registrant”),do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

 

1.                                       The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of theRegistrant for the period ended March 31, 2004 (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15 U.S.C. 78m); and

 

2.                                       The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Registrant.

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to Gasel Transportation Lines, Inc.and will be retained by Gasel Transportation Lines, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 
| Dated: | May 19, 2004 |   | By:                               | /s/ Michael J. Post |   |
|--------|--------------|--------|-----------------------------------|--------------------------|--------|
|   |         |   | Michael J. Post                   |
|   |         |   | President, Treasurer &  Chief |
|   |         |   | Executive Officer                 |

 

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDRES LUJANO MUNOZ, AKA Andres

Lujano, AKA Lujano Munoz,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 19

- 70003

Agency No. A206

- 402

- 877

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 14, 2020 * *

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Andres Lujano Munoz

, a native and citizen of Mexico

, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for deferral of removal under

the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)

. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

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

# FILED

JUL 22 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 70003

§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya

v. Mukasey , 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008) . We review de novo due process

claims in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder , 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir.

2014). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Lujano Munoz failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or

with the consent or acquiescence of t he government if returned to Mexico

. See

Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

Lujano Munoz’s contentions that the agency ignored evidence or otherwise

erred in its analysis of his case are unsupported by the record

. See Lata v. INS

, 204

F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim)

.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED

.
PaULl^Bl^L

p<^L JofM

CoyrVr& Cj\ rM a cAjfVflggg-^-

gje:

Qe^rClerk

OEC 31 2014

AQS" &«q«

FILED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Abel Acosta, Clerk

5?rtC€/t-Vy,

Jk##

cu

c T tA^5^ ^wlor^M re**-i&*
fk\c erf 6rrAU^uj^kll^.

dgi/^l* for Co^VA?folA^_gS^^ 4

To 4W \W<^ 3^ 6^ £^ csu^

TO C3 (WVJVN^cWiWli

TcnAtsSteC«Wy,7cX^~7£Z£&_
60^ tvxA^Oc Code cH^-\ ^^^' ^oW, ^

l|.W6oc^>Ac\5c-a^l c<L*yt±\* Le*^ e«e cocx4r 4o QroeeU l/vtiKm^^^^.

(9*V -1- H<HX. r\o ^x£e o4 Income e*~ Sfoo&ftY 9aos*w«-.

^ Oof'"5 rv^ XACC^e/f^— '* •HtTo^s ^t^4m^W(lflmM«V-Su&+ef 3rMo«

» . . • . . „\^ ^x „r D1i;UcrvJ income -fr©/r\cw SoireetTn: \W w«\ Oeb^ J A^-^rll^^-'

(f>7} 3T cue SM'A ^ ca\ikM^ •

TO C5 **" l^5J2iz^
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3466 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3466

    To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to apply the 
prohibition against the conversion of contributions to personal use to 
            contributions accepted by political committees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 13, 2013

 Mr. Jones (for himself, Mr. Price of North Carolina, and Mr. Scott of 
  Virginia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to apply the 
prohibition against the conversion of contributions to personal use to 
            contributions accepted by political committees.

    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 ``No Political Funds for Personal Use 
Act''.

SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF PROHIBITION AGAINST CONVERSION OF CONTRIBUTIONS 
              TO PERSONAL USE TO CONTRIBUTIONS ACCEPTED BY POLITICAL 
              COMMITTEES.

    (a) Prohibiting Conversion to Personal Use.--Section 313(b) of the 
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 439a(b)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or a receipt of any 
        other political committee'' after ``subsection (a)'';
            (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``contribution or 
        donation'' and inserting ``contribution, donation, or 
        receipt''; and
            (3) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the candidate's 
        election campaign or individual's duties as a holder of Federal 
        office,'' and inserting the following: ``the candidate's 
        election campaign, the individual's duties as a holder of 
        Federal office, or the political committee's political 
        activities (as the case may be),''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply with respect to contributions or donations accepted on or after 
the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### KUYKENDALL v. STATE.

No. 24708.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 15, 1950.

None on appeal for appellant.

R. L. Whitehead, Cr. Dist. Atty., Long-view, David C. Moore, Asst. Cr. Dist. Atty., Longview, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for murder with a penalty of ten years in the penitentiary.

Appellant has filed no brief in this case but his attorney presented for filing a motion for permission to withdraw the appeal, which was signed by the attorney alone. This motion was returned and not filed because the same is not in compliance with the statute.

The evidence amply sustains the jury’s verdict and same will not be discussed.

It appears from the motion for new trial that two questions were raised. The first complained of the sufficiency of the indictment in that it alleged that appellant killed the deceased “by striking him with a piece of wood.” Under many authorities we have held this to be sufficient. Beaver v. State, 63 Tex.Cr.R. 581, 142 S.W. 11; Smith v. State, 123 Tex.Cr.R. 95, 57 S.W.2d 163; Cassell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 216 S.W.2d 813; and Dwyer v. State, 12 Tex.App. 535.

The second complaint refers to paragraph No. 13 of the court’s charge, wherein is submitted an issue of provoking the difficulty. In the absence of a brief by appellant we are not able to discuss this question and consider that none is necessary.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.