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




STI
      GROUP, INC.





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 Quarterly Report of STI Group, Inc. (the “Company”), on Form
      10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),  David
      Walters, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Principal 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) or15(d)
                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                and





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





Date:
      May 28, 2008




/s/
      David Walters


David
      Walters


Chief
      Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
**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 Silver Bay Realty Trust Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David N. Miller, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Company.

 

 
| March   1, 2013 | /s/   David N. Miller                     |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------|
|            | David   N. Miller                         |
| * *        | *President   and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
**Exhibit      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. §1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| **DATE:                November 10, 2008** | **/s/                Donald W. Hughes**    |
|--------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|                                       | **Donald                W. Hughes**        |
|                                       | **Chief                Financial Officer** |

*A      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been      provided to Camden Learning Corporation and will be retained by Camden Learning      Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its      staff      upon request.*

----
Exhibit 23.1

 

Consent of Independent RegisteredPublic Accounting Firm

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatement (No. 333-185046) on Form S-8 of RMR Industrials, Inc. of our report dated June 27, 2016, relating to the consolidatedfinancial statements of RMR Industrials, Inc. (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraphrelating to going concern), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-KT of RMR Industrials, Inc. for the six months ended March31, 2016.

 

 

Irvine, California

November 14, 2016
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE:

FRANK ENRIQUEZ, Individually and as the

Personal Representative of the Estate of

CHRISTINE RAMIREZ, and for all wrongful

death beneficiaries,

Relator. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 23

- 00008

- CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus against

the Honorable Sergio Enriquez , Judge of the 44 8th District Court of El Paso County, Texas, and

concludes that Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus should be denie d as moot. We therefore

deny the petition for writ of mandamus as moot in accordance with the opinion of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 2 0 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023.

Y VONNE T. RODRIGUEZ

, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ

.
#### JONES v. STATE.

No. 20168.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 15, 1939.

J. Earle Kuntz, of Wichita Falls, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

The conviction is for theft; punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary.

The record in this cause contains neither a statement of facts nor bills of exception. The indictment and all matters of procedure appearing to be in proper form, the judgment is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 198 (Friday, October 11, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 82634]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-23618]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Pistoia Alliance, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on August 21, 2024, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (the ``Act''), Pistoia Alliance, Inc. 
filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General 
and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. 
The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Osthus GmbH, 
Aachen, GERMANY; QunaSys, Bunkyo, JAPAN; BioLizard, Gent, BELGIUM; and 
Medable, Palo Alto, CA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Pistoia Alliance, Inc. intends to 
file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in 
membership.
    On May 28, 2009, Pistoia Alliance, Inc. filed its original 
notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of 
Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 
6(b) of the Act on July 15, 2009 (74 FR 34364).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on May 28, 
2024. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal 
Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on June 28, 2024 (89 FR 
54046).

Suzanne Morris,
Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2024-23618 Filed 10-10-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TATYANA EVGENIEVNA 

DREVALEVA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

PETER O’ROURKE, 

Defendant.

No. 19-17286 

D.C. No. 3:19-cv-01454-WHA 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 9, 2020**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva appeals pro se from the district court’s 

* 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

NOV 18 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-17286 

judgment dismissing her action under the Administrative Procedures Act related to 

her appointment for a position with the Department of Veterans Affairs. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s 

dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Mangano v. United States, 529 

F.3d 1243, 1245 n.2 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Drevaleva’s action because it is 

precluded by the Civil Service Reform Act (“CSRA”). See Brock v. United States, 

64 F.3d 1421, 1425 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The CSRA is the exclusive remedy for all 

prohibited personnel actions.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Drevaleva’s postjudgment Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion because Drevaleva failed 

to demonstrate any basis for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., 

Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of 

review, and grounds for reconsideration under Rule 60). 

All pending motions are denied as moot. 

AFFIRMED.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-90,679-01

EX P ARTE DANNY JOE G IP SON , App licant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 10F 0430-005-A IN THE 5T H DISTRICT COURT

F ROM BOWIE COUNTY

Per curiam . O P I N I O N Applicant was convicted of indece ncy

with a child by

exposure and sentenc ed to 10 y ear s’ imprisonment. He filed this application for a writ of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cler

k forwa rded it to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. Applicant contends that he was denied the opportunity to file an appea l. The rec ord indicates that Applicant indicated a desire to appea l his conviction, but that he was denie d his r ight to do so throug h no fault of his own. Ex parte Riley, 193 S.W .3d 900, 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). The habea s court has de termined that Applica nt did not have the opportunity to file an a

ppeal. Relief is g rante d. E

x p a r te Axel , 757 S.W .2d 369 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988); Jones v. State , 98 S.W .3d 700 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Applicant may file an out-of-time appea l of his conviction2

in cause number 10F0430- 005 from the 5th District Court of Bow ie County

. Wit hin ten day s from the date of this Court’s mandate, the trial court s h al l d et er m i ne whether Applicant is indige nt. I f Appli ca n t is indige nt and wants to be represe nted by counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to repr esent him on direc t appea l. All deadlines shall be c alculate d as i f Appli cant was sentenc ed

on the date of this Court’s mandate. Should Applicant decide to appea l, he must file a written notice of appe al in the trial cour t within thi rty

day s from the da te of this Court’s mandate. Applicant’s r emaining alleg ations are dismiss ed. Copi e s o f th is o p in io n s h a ll be sent to the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice–Corre ctional I nstitut ions Division and the Boa rd of Par dons and Paroles.

Deliver ed: April 8, 2020 Do not publish
EX-4.3



 Exhibit 4.3 

AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO TO THE 

METLIFE INDIVIDUAL DISTRIBUTION SALES DEFERRED COMPENSATION 

PLAN 
 (As effective January 1,
2010) 
 The MetLife Individual Distribution Sales Deferred Compensation Plan is hereby amended, effective January 1, 2011, as follows:

 1. Section 8 is hereby amended to read as follows: 
  

	“8.	Matching Contribution. If a Participant has a valid deferral election to make contributions to SIP throughout a calendar year, the Participant’s Matching Contribution Account shall be credited with
the amount of Matching Contribution (if any) with which the Participant’s SIP account would have been credited under the terms and provisions of the SIP without application of certain Tax Code limitations under Code sections 415 and 401 (a)(17)
with respect to compensation deferred into this Plan. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Matching Contributions shall be credited in favor of a Participant during the suspension of such Participant’s deferrals pursuant to Section 4.5 of
this Plan. A Participant’s Matching Contribution Account shall vest or be forfeited to the same extent, and on the same vesting schedule, that such Matching Contributions would have vested or been forfeited under the terms of SIP,
notwithstanding any accelerated vesting under the SIP for individuals who transfer to MetLife Bank.” 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Plan
Administrator has caused this Amendment to be adopted this 16th day of December, 2010. 
  

	
	PLAN ADMINISTRATOR
	
	 /s/ Andrew J. Bernstein

	Andrew J. Bernstein


  

	
	 ATTEST:

	
	 /s/ Candice Martin



  
 1
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

462 

KA 10-00663 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JAVAN BURROUGHS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DREW R. DUBRIN OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John J.

Connell, J.), rendered March 27, 2009. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree and

robbery in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously reversed on the law, the plea is vacated and the matter is

remitted to Monroe County Court for further proceedings on the

indictment. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his guilty plea of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law

§ 160.15 [2]) and robbery in the second degree (§ 160.10 [1]). We

agree with defendant that his factual allocution “negate[d] an

essential element of the crime” of robbery in the first degree (People

v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666), inasmuch as defendant stated that the

weapon used was a “fake.” As the People correctly conceded at oral

argument, County Court failed to clarify whether defendant or an

accomplice was in fact “armed with a deadly weapon” (§ 160.15 [2]). 

“[A]t a minimum the record of the . . . plea proceedings must reflect

. . . that defendant’s responses to the court’s subsequent questions

removed the doubt about defendant’s guilt” of the crime of robbery in

the first degree (People v Ocasio, 265 AD2d 675, 678). Thus, we 

vacate his plea of guilty with respect to robbery in the first degree. 

Additionally, we note that defendant pleaded guilty to both counts of

robbery with the understanding that he would be sentenced to

concurrent determinate terms of imprisonment of five years. Inasmuch

as he was induced to plead guilty based on the promise of concurrent

sentences, we also vacate the plea with respect to robbery in the

second degree, thereby vacating the plea in its entirety (see People v

Rosa, 30 AD3d 905, 908, lv denied 7 NY3d 851; cf. People v Hinckley, 
-2- 462 

KA 10-00663 

50 AD3d 1466, 1467, lv denied 10 NY3d 959).

Entered: May 3, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
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-2024-SCC-0112]

# AGENCY:

Department of Education (ED), Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE).

# ACTION:

Correction notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        On September 11, 2024, the 60-day comment period published in the                         **Federal Register**                         (FRN Vol. 89, No. 176, pages 73638-9) for the proposed revised information collection, Consolidated Annual Report (CAR) for the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006, with an end date of November 12, 2024. An error was made to the Docket No.: ED-2024-SCC-0112 posting with the current instrument version of the Perkins V Consolidated Annual Report. Approximately two weeks after the publication on September 23, 2024, ED corrected this error and posted the correct version of the instrument, Perkins V Consolidated Annual Report 1830-0569 revision to the record. As a result, the Department is extending the public comment period two weeks. The new end date of the comment period is November 26, 2024.                    

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: October 9, 2024.

Juliana Pearson,

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

[FR Doc. 2024-23732 Filed 10-11-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 17

- 00139

- CR

WILLIE GUILLERMO TORRES, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 391st District Court Tom Green County, Texas Trial Court No. D

- 15

- 0230

- SB

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.2 

### O R D E R We abated this matter to the trial court for a hearing under Rule 38.8(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure to determine (1) whether the appellant still desired to prosecute this appeal, (2) whether appointed appellate counsel had abandoned the app eal, and (3) if counsel had not abandoned the appeal, why an appellate brief had not been filed. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(b). After conducting the hearing mandated by our order, the trial court determined that the appellant still desires to prosecute the appeal, that counsel has not abandoned the appeal, and that medical issues prevented counsel from timely completing the appellate brief in this matter. The trial court further determined that appointed counsel was medically capable of completing the brie fing in this case and recommended that we afford counsel an additional thirty days in which to complete the opening brief. In light of the trial court’s findings and in keeping with its recommendations, we hereby order appointed counsel to file the appell ant’s brief in this matter on or before January 11, 2018

. IT IS SO ORDERED.
BY THE COURT
Date: December 12, 2017
#### Wuesthoff, Respondent, vs. Department of Taxation, Appellant. Post, Respondent, vs. Same, Appellant. Riedeburg, Respondent, vs. Same, Appellant.

*February 4*

March *4, 1952.*

For the appellant there were briefs by the *Attorney General*and *Harold H. Persons*and *E. Weston Wood,*assistant attorneys general, and *Neil Conway,*inheritance tax counsel, and oral argument by *Mr. Persons, Mr. Conway,*and *Mr. Wood.*

For the respondents there was a brief by *Lines, Spooner & Quarles,*attorneys, and *Louis Quarles, Maxwell H. Her-riott,*and *Richard R. Teschner*of counsel, all of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Mr. Herriott*and *Mr. Teschner.*

Martin, J.

These cases arise out of the transaction involved in case No. 136 and the questions involved are the *106same as presented there. They are therefore ruled by that decision, *Wuesthoff v. Department of*Taxation, ante, p. 98, 52 N. W. 131.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed in each case.
# L_2011162EN.01000701.xml

| 22.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 162/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 162/7

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 598/2011

of 21 June 2011

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,

Whereas:

Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XV, Part A thereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 22 June 2011.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 21 June 2011.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

José Manuel SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 350, 31.12.2007, p. 1.

2

---

ANNEX

Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

| (EUR/100 kg) |
| --- |
| CN code | Third country code (1) | Standard import value |
| 0702 00 00 | MA | 57,8 |
| MK | 31,8 |
| TR | 55,0 |
| ZZ | 48,2 |
| 0707 00 05 | TR | 115,5 |
| ZZ | 115,5 |
| 0709 90 70 | TR | 109,9 |
| ZZ | 109,9 |
| 0805 50 10 | AR | 62,1 |
| BR | 40,6 |
| TR | 69,2 |
| ZA | 116,8 |
| ZZ | 72,2 |
| 0808 10 80 | AR | 86,8 |
| BR | 76,9 |
| CL | 95,4 |
| CN | 80,9 |
| NZ | 115,2 |
| UY | 56,7 |
| ZA | 89,3 |
| ZZ | 85,9 |
| 0809 10 00 | TR | 296,7 |
| ZZ | 296,7 |
| 0809 20 95 | TR | 395,7 |
| XS | 382,4 |
| ZZ | 389,1 |

(EUR/100 kg)

CN code

Third country code (1)

Standard import value

0702 00 00

MA

57,8

MK

31,8

TR

55,0

ZZ

48,2

0707 00 05

TR

115,5

ZZ

115,5

0709 90 70

TR

109,9

ZZ

109,9

0805 50 10

AR

62,1

BR

40,6

TR

69,2

ZA

116,8

ZZ

72,2

0808 10 80

AR

86,8

BR

76,9

CL

95,4

CN

80,9

NZ

115,2

UY

56,7

ZA

89,3

ZZ

85,9

0809 10 00

TR

296,7

ZZ

296,7

0809 20 95

TR

395,7

XS

382,4

ZZ

389,1

---

(1)  Nomenclature of countries laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1833/2006 (OJ L 354, 14.12.2006, p. 19). Code ‘
  ZZ
  ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.

---