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

The undersigned, Kenneth M. Roessler, President and Chief Executive Officer of BWAY Holding Company and BWAY
Corporation (the Companies) and Kevin C. Kern, Vice-President, Administration and Chief Financial Officer of the Companies, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | (1) | The quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Companies for the quarter ended July 1, 2007 (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. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Companies.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: August 14, 2007



|                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Kenneth M. Roessler                                   
|Kenneth M. Roessler                                       
|President and Chief Executive Officer                     
|                                                          
|/s/ Kevin C. Kern                                         
|Kevin C. Kern                                             
|Vice-President, Administration and Chief Financial Officer
#### CLEMMONS v. STATE.

No. 15972.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 31, 1933.

W. J. Baldwin, of Beaumont, for appellant.

Eloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for burglary; punishment, two years in the penitentiary. *>*

We find no brief on file for appellant. But one question is raised in the record, viz., misconduct of the jury in receiving other testimony. The court heard the testimony of *103three jurors when the motion for new trial was presented. They stated that some discussion was had in the jury room of the fact that appellant was then under a suspended sentence in another case. There is nothing in the testimony of either juror, nor is it shown otherwise, that there ,was no testimony upon the trial that appellant was under a suspended sentence. In other words, it is not shown that the matter claimed misconduct was one which was not properly before the jury.

In addition to what we have just said, we observe that the jurors testified that by reason of the fact that attention was called in the jury room to appellant already being under a suspended sentence, they gave him a less penalty than they otherwise would have done. It thus becomes evident that whatever was said in this regard inured to the benefit of appellant and was not taken as a circumstance against him. This could not be harmful to appellant. This would not be such misconduct as would cause reversal.

The judgment will be affirmed.
DENY and Opinion Filed July 14, 2022 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-00657-CV IN RE CITY OF DALLAS, Relator Original Proceeding from the 14th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-01696 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck, Carlyle, and Goldstein Opinion by Justice Schenck Before the Court are relator’s July 1, 2022 petition for writs of prohibition and injunction and motion for emergency stay. In its petition, relator requests that we issue a writ of prohibition against the trial court to prevent it from signing an order enforcing the order authorizing pre-suit de positions. Relator also requests that we issue a writ of injunction against real party in interest to prevent her from taking any further action to enforce the order author izing pre-suit depos itions pending final resolution of a related mandamus proceeding. A writ of prohibition has three functi ons: (1) preventing interference with higher courts in deciding a pending appeal; (2) preventing an inferior court from entertaining suits that will re-litigate c ontroversies already settled by the issuing–2– court; and (3) prohibiting a tr ial court’s action when it a ffirmatively appears the court lacks jurisdiction. In re Bolton , No. 05-10-01115-CV, 2010 WL 4011041, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 14, 2010, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (citing Humble Expl. Co., Inc. v. Walker , 641 S.W.2d 941, 943 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1982, orig. proceeding)). We conclude that relator ha s presented no proper basis for this Court to issue a writ of prohibition here. A court of appeals also does not have or iginal jurisdiction to grant writs of injunction, “except to protect its jurisdic tion over the subject matter of a pending appeal, or to prevent an unlawful interfere nce with the enforcement of its judgments and decrees.” In re Torres , No. 05-18-00774-CV, 2018 WL 4784580, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 4, 2018, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (quoting Ott v. Bell , 606 S.W.2d 955, 957 (Tex. App.—Waco 1980, no wr it)). Because there is no pending appeal associated with this original pro ceeding, we conclude that relator has not shown that a writ of injunction is necessary. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition fo r writs of prohibition and injunction.
See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a). Having denied the petiti on, we also deny the motion for emergency stay as moot.

220657F.P05 /David J. Schenck / DAVID J. SCHENCK JUSTICE
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 Annual Report of Boston Financial Tax Credit Fund Plus (the “Fund”) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2010  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, hereby certifies 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; and





2.
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.











/s/Kenneth J. Cutillo


Kenneth J. Cutillo


Principal Executive Officer and


Principal Financial Officer


Arch Street VIII, Inc., as


Managing General Partner of


Boston Financial Tax Credit Fund Plus,


A Limited Partnership








Date:           April 6, 2011





A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 17, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134170 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134170 

 COA: 267113 

Wayne CC: 05-006457-01

GARY VERNARD PATTERSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 19, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p1010 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

October 17, 2007 

 Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Form 10-Q for the nine months ended March 31, 2000
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                6284
<SECURITIES>                                          2454
<RECEIVABLES>                                        28762
<ALLOWANCES>                                           587
<INVENTORY>                                          31763
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     69042
<PP&E>                                               41775
<DEPRECIATION>                                       25723
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      102082
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                42679
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                           8406
<COMMON>                                                78
<OTHER-SE>                                           50919
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        102082
<SALES>                                              88806
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     94154
<CGS>                                                46180
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        46180
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     50459
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     666
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        128
<INCOME-TAX>                                           540
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (412)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (412)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.09)



</TABLE>
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Deutsche Mortgage & AssetReceiving Corporation 

60 WALL ST

NEW YORK, New York 10005-2836

 

 

RE: Annual Statement ofCompliance for COMM 2015-CCRE24 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates

 

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of August 1, 2015 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo'sactivities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under theAgreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of suchofficer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

/s/ Jeffrey Coletta

Jeffrey Coletta

Assistant Secretary

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
#### In the Matter of the Guardianship of Christina Jeanette C., an Infant. Little Flower Children’s Services, Respondent; Ralph C., Appellant.

Order, Family Court, New York County (Leah Ruth Marks, J.), entered on or about May 12, 1988, which terminated respondent father’s parental rights of Christina Jeanette C. and awarded custody and guardianship of said child to the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of placing said child for adoption with her foster parents, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent contends that petitioner failed to prove that it exercised diligent efforts to strengthen his relationship with his three-year-old child. To the contrary, the evidence clearly demonstrates that the agency diligently attempted to reunite respondent with his daughter, but that he failed to plan for her return and regularly failed to maintain contact with her, only visiting his child five times between December 1987 and October 1988, despite numerous scheduled visits. The agency repeatedly attempted to help respondent overcome his drug problem, a major barrier preventing discharge of his child from foster care, but respondent refused the agency’s aid. Notably, the agency also explored the possibility of placing respondent’s daughter with his sister, but she never formally decided to take Christina into her home.

Under the circumstances, in light of respondent’s failure to realistically plan for the future of his daughter and in light of his failure to regularly keep in contact with her, there was a sufficient basis to support a determination of permanent neglect. *(Matter of Star Leslie W.,*63 NY2d 136.) Moreover, the evidence establishes that the best interest of Christina would be served by a termination of respondent’s parental rights so that she can be freed for adoption by her foster parents, with whom Christina has lived for almost her entire life.

While respondent alternatively requests a suspended judg*352ment, he has not demonstrated that he has taken any steps to ameliorate the conditions which led to Christina’s placement in the first place. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Asch, Kassal, Wallach and Smith, JJ.
A01A0523.

#### POGANY v. THE STATE.

(547 SE2d 780)

Johnson, Presiding Judge.

Robert Pogany was charged with four traffic violations: (1) HOV violation, (2) attempting to flee and elude, (3) reckless driving, and *213(4) improper backing. After a bench trial in the City Court of Atlanta, he was found guilty of all charges, fined, and had his driver’s license suspended.

Decided April 12, 2001.

*David J. Reed,*for appellant.

*Joseph J. Drolet, Solicitor-General, Katherine Diamandis, Assistant Solicitor-General,*for appellee.

In nine enumerations of error, Pogany contends the City Court of Atlanta lacks constitutional existence and jurisdiction under our state constitution. However, a review of the record in this case reveals that Pogany failed to raise these constitutional issues in the trial court. The Supreme Court of Georgia has consistently held that a constitutional challenge must be made as soon as possible and certainly before the return of the guilty verdict.1 Because Pogany gambled on an acquittal and waited to challenge the constitutional existence and jurisdiction of the City Court of Atlanta until after he was convicted by that court, he is barred from raising the issues on appeal.2

Moreover, the Supreme Court of Georgia recently ruled on the very issues raised by Pogany. In *Wickham v. State*
      *3*
      **the Supreme Court held that the City Court of Atlanta does not lack constitutional existence and that, therefore, its exercise of jurisdiction does not run afoul of state or federal due process. Thus, even if he had not waived his constitutional challenges, Pogany’s enumerations of error would lack merit.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Ruffin and Ellington, JJ, concur.*

See *Hardeman v. State,*272 Ga. 361, 362 (529 SE2d 368) (2000).

Id.

273 Ga. 563 (544 SE2d 439) (2001).
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 Annual  Report of  Applied  NeuroSolutions,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the year ending  December  31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
John F. DeBernardis,  Chief Executive 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:

(1)   The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

                            /s/ John F. DeBernardis
                            --------------------------------------------
                            John F. DeBernardis, Chief Executive Officer
                            March 18, 2005

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.
Order entered January 23, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00954-CR

BARBARA KENNEDY WARD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F09-73060-V

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On January 20, 2015, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why 

appellant’s brief has not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant desires to 

pursue the appeal; (2) appellant is indigent and represented by court-appointed counsel Riann 

Moore; (3) Ms. Moore’s explanation for the delay in filing appellant’s brief is that she “is still 

working on it”; and (4) Ms. Moore represented that she anticipates filing the brief within before 

the thirty-day period provided by the January 20, 2015 abatement order expires.

We ORDER appellant to file his brief by FEBRUARY 19, 2015. No further extensions 

will be granted absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances. 
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to 

counsel for all parties.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                     Certificate Pursuant to Section 1350 of
                Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code



The undersigned officers hereby certify, as to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
of CITGO Petroleum Corporation for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002,
that (i) the report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) the
information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of CITGO Petroleum Corporation
and its subsidiaries.




Date: August 9, 2002                  /s/ Oswaldo Contreras
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Oswaldo Contreras
                                      Chief Executive Officer
                                      CITGO Petroleum Corporation


Date: August 9, 2002                  /s/ Eddie R. Humphrey
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Eddie R. Humphrey
                                      Chief Financial Officer
                                      CITGO Petroleum Corporation
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1741 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1741

To ensure independent investigations by allowing judicial review of the 
         removal of a special counsel, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 3, 2017

 Mr. Tillis (for himself and Mr. Coons) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To ensure independent investigations by allowing judicial review of the 
         removal of a special counsel, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Special Counsel Integrity Act''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON REMOVAL OF SPECIAL COUNSEL.

    (a) In General.--A special counsel appointed under Department of 
Justice regulations may be disciplined or removed from office only by 
the personal action of an Attorney General who has been confirmed by 
the Senate, or, if the Attorney General is recused from the matter, the 
most senior Department of Justice official who has been confirmed by 
the Senate and is not recused from the matter.
    (b) Cause for Removal.--A special counsel appointed under 
Department of Justice regulations may only be removed for misconduct, 
dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or other good 
cause, including violation of policies of the Department of Justice.
    (c) Notice of Removal.--The Attorney General, or other Department 
of Justice official described in subsection (a), as the case may be, 
shall inform the special counsel in writing of the specific reason for 
the removal.
    (d) Review.--
            (1) In general.--An individual removed under subsection (b) 
        may file an action in accordance with paragraph (2) that the 
        removal was in violation of this section.
            (2) Requirements.--An action filed under this subsection 
        shall be heard and determined by a court of 3 judges not later 
        than 14 days after the date on which the action is filed in 
        accordance with the provisions of section 2284 of title 28, 
        United States Code, and any appeal shall lie to the Supreme 
        Court.
            (3) Reinstatement.--If a court determines that an 
        individual was removed from a position in violation of this 
        section, the individual shall be immediately reinstated to the 
        position of special counsel.
    (e) Effective Date.--This Act shall apply to any special counsel 
appointed on or after May 17, 2017.
                                 <all>
```