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





Type:  Exhibit- 32.1


Description:  Certification of the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Citizens Capital Corp. (the “Registrant”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter  ended March 31, 2011 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Registrant fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant as of, and for, the period March 31, 2011 presented in the Form 10-Q, respectively.





Date: September 10, 2011

/s/
Billy D. HawkinsBilly D. HawkinsChief Executive Officer





* The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
a:AMERICAN®E&ECfRICPOWERAmericanElectricPower1RiversidePlazaColumbus,OH43215-2373AEP.comAugust14,2015JezebeleAliceaEngineering&AnalysisDivisionEPAWest/ConnectingWing(Rm6231P)1301ConstitutionAve.,NWWashington,DC20004Re:DraftNotesfromSiteVisitatAEP'sAmosPlantonNovember4,2014DearMs.Alicea:WehavereviewedthedraftnotesfromtheNovember4,2014,EPAsitevisittotheAmosPlantsite,whichincludestheassociatedpresentationandphotographs.Wearerecommendingchangestothesitevisitnotesandhaveindicatedwhichportionsareconsideredtobeconfidentialbusinessinformation.ThesechangeshavebeenindicatedintheelectronicversionprovidedontheenclosedCD.Wehavealsoansweredthequestionsthatwereincludedinthenotesandareprovidingtherequesteddrawingsanddiagrams(onenclosedCD).Two-ofthesedrawingsarefromtheUnitedConveyorCorporation(UCC)andpermissiontosharethemwithEPAhasbeenobtainedfromUCC(seeattachedapproval).ThephotographsprovidedontheEPACDhavebeenreviewedandarenotconsideredtobeconfidentialbusinessinformationbyAEP.Ifyouhaveanyotherquestionsregardingthedraftnotes,youcancontactmeat614-716-1255orattwlohner@aep.com.Sincerely,TimothyLohner,Ph.D.EnvironmentalServicesEnclosureCBI_SE05649_AEP_JohnAmosSiteVisitNotes_07242015rev.pdfCBI_AEP_Amosrequesteddrawings.pdfUCCapprovaltoshareCBIdrawings.pdf;----------------.··--·.-.
#### Dacho, Respondent, vs. Tarr and others, Appellants.

.For the appellants : *Alfred E. La France*of Racine.

For the respondent: *Walter E. Anderson,*attorney, and *Charles 0. Bergener*of counsel, both of Racine.

*By the Court.*

Order affirmed.
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 732

To require the Inspector General of the Department of Defense to conduct

an audit of purchases of military clothing and related items made during

fiscal year 1998 by certain military installations of the Army, Navy,

Air Force, and Marine Corps.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 25, 1999

Mr. TORRICELLI introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To require the Inspector General of the Department of Defense to conduct an audit of purchases of military clothing and related items made during fiscal year 1998 by

certain military installations of the Army, Navy, Air

Force, and Marine Corps.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. AUDIT OF PROCUREMENT OF MILITARY

4 CLOTHING AND CLOTHING-RELATED ITEMS

5 BY CERTAIN MILITARY INSTALLATIONS.

6 (a) AUDIT REQUIREMENT.—The Inspector General

7 of the Department of Defense shall perform an audit of
2

•S 732 IS

1 purchases of military clothing and clothing-related items

2 in excess of the micro-purchase threshold that were made

3 during fiscal year 1998 by certain military installations

4 to determine the extent to which such installations pro5 cured military clothing and clothing-related items in viola6 tion of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.) and

7 section 9005 of Public Law 102–396 (10 U.S.C. 2241

8 note) during that fiscal year.

9 (b) INSTALLATIONS TO BE AUDITED.—The audit

10 under subsection (a)—

11 (1) shall include an audit of the procurement of

12 military clothing and clothing-related items by four

13 military installations of each of the Army, Navy, Air

14 Force, and Marine Corps; and

15 (2) shall be limited to military installations in

16 the United States or the possessions of the United

17 States.

18 (c) DEFINITION.—As used in subsection (a), the term

19 ‘‘micro-purchase threshold’’ has the meaning provided by

20 32(f) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41

21 U.S.C. 428(f)).

22 (d) REPORT.—Not later than September 30, 2000,

23 the Inspector General of the Department of Defense shall
3

•S 732 IS

1 submit to Congress a report on the results of the audit

2 performed under subsection (a).

Æ
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDUARDO LARIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. BANK OF AMERICA, NA, Defendant - Appellee. No. 12-57288D.C. No. 3:09-cv-01062-DMSJMA
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted May 8, 2015 Pasadena, California Before: PREGERSON, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Eduardo Larin appeals the district court’s dismissal of his putative class action complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing dismissal on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds de novo, Dougherty v. City of 

# FILED
JUN 04 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.Covina , 654 F.3d 892, 897 (9th Cir. 2011), and denial of leave to amend for abuse of discretion, Salameh v.Tarsadia Hotel , 726 F.3d 1124, 1129, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013), we affirm. 1. Larin’s claims under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law are evaluated under a “reasonable consumer standard” by which he must “show that members of the public are likely to be deceived.” Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co. , 552 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Larin alleges no affirmative misrepresentations in connection with Bank of America’s overdraft protection program (“ODP”) that would likely d eceive a reasonable consumer. The statements concerning the benefits of ODP are qualified, and Bank of America disclosed that its general policy is “to pr ovide availability of deposited funds nextday,” though there is always a “risk that a deposited check may not clear.” Larin deposited a $7,500 check, and the balance wa s made available to him by the next day. When the check failed to clear, under the terms of ODP, Bank of America covered payments made against that check with Larin’s linked credit card account and charged him agreed-upon credit card fees . While Larin argues that enrollment in ODP increased his risk of incurring fees because Bank of America would have otherwise held his deposit up to eleven business days, the allegations in the
2complaint demonstrate that ODP worked in the manner disclosed in the Deposit Agreement. Therefore, there were no affirmative misrepresentations that support Larin’s claims. 2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing this case with prejudice, given Larin’s multiple opportunities for amendment. United States ex rel. Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys, Inc. , 637 F.3d 1047, 1058 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he district court’s discretion to de ny leave to amend is particularly broad where plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” (quoting Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co. , 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989)). AFFIRMED.

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

OMAR REYNALDO GARCIACHAVEZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-10447

D.C. No. 4:12-cr-02532-CKJ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Fred L. Van Sickle, District Judge, Presiding**

Submitted August 25, 2015*** 

Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Omar Reynaldo Garcia-Chavez appeals from the district court’s judgment

and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 46-month sentence for reentry after

FILED

SEP 01 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The Honorable Fred L. Van Sickle, Senior United States District

Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), Garcia-Chavez’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no

grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have

provided Garcia-Chavez the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro

se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. 

Garcia-Chavez waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our

independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United

States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss

the appeal. See id. at 988. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED. 

2 13-10447
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANICAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE LORONIX
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET, STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND CASH FLOWS
FROM ITS 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                       4,570,414<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,516,741
<ALLOWANCES>                                   191,461
<INVENTORY>                                  1,052,311
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,552,141
<PP&E>                                       3,571,970
<DEPRECIATION>                                 688,238
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,911,149
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,753,118
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,668
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,120,546
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,911,149
<SALES>                                      5,544,279
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,544,279
<CGS>                                        2,621,084
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,621,084
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,511,534
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                568,426
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (124,013)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            444,413
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   444,413
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
<FN>
<F1>THE COMPANY HAS TWO OUTSTANDING LETTERS OF CREDIT COLLATERALIZED BY
CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSITS TOTALLING APPROXIMATELY $50,000.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 439 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 439

To amend the National Forest and Public Lands of Nevada Enhancement Act 
 of 1988 to adjust the boundary of the Toiyabe National Forest, Nevada.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 22, 1999

   Mr. Bryan introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the National Forest and Public Lands of Nevada Enhancement Act 
 of 1988 to adjust the boundary of the Toiyabe National Forest, Nevada.

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

SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF BOUNDARY OF THE TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST, 
              NEVADA.

    Section 4(a) of the National Forest and Public Lands of Nevada 
Enhancement Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 2750) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``Effective'' and inserting the following:
            ``(1) In general.--Effective''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(2) Boundary adjustment.--Effective on the date of 
        enactment of this paragraph, the portion of the land 
        transferred to the Secretary of Agriculture under paragraph (1) 
        situated between the lines marked `Old Forest Boundary' and 
        `Revised National Forest Boundary' on the map entitled `Nevada 
        Interchange ``A'', Change 1', and dated September 16, 1998, is 
        transferred to the Secretary of the Interior.''.
                                 <all>
```
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00442-CV

YORK, WHITMAN AND ASSOCIATES, LLC D/B/A YORK, WHITMAN AND 

ASSOCIATES

v.

XO PRODUCE, INC.

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 1 of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CL-13-1071-A

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. The Court 

orders the appeal DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION in accordance with its 

opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

October 17, 2013
EX-10.8
                  CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE

                          EVERLERT, INC.

Amount: $68,260.00                                      Date: 7/14/00

Everlert, Inc., a Nevada corporation ("Maker"), promises to pay
to the order of Jerry G. Hilbert ("Holder") located at 1135 South
Baker, Santa Ana, California 92707 or such other place as may be
designated in writing by holder or its assigns , the principal
sum of $68,260.00, with interest thereon from this date, until
fully paid, at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum (Maker and
Holder may be independently referred to hereinafter as "Party" or
collectively referred hereinafter as the "Parties").  Such
principal and interest shall be due and payable at the designated
address of Holder one (1) year from the date of this Promissory
Note (the "Note").

Terms and Conditions

1. Note is due and payable twelve (12) months from the date
unless converted to Common Stock in Everlert, Inc.

2. Interest often percent (10%) per year, paid in arrears.

Conversion Provisions

1. Holder may convert at any time during the term of the Note for
Everlert, Inc. Common Stock at $1.00 per Share.

2. Conversion may be made by Holder for Note amount due plus
accrued interest, or any part thereof.

3. All shares converted by Holder will be registered as free
trading on a best efforts basis at the time of the next
registration after the initial public offering.

4. Cash payments, plus interest win not be made to Holder prior
to twelve (12) months, even if the early conversion is exercised
by Maker.

This Note has been executed and delivered in the State of Nevada
and shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws
of the State of Nevada.

EVERLERT, INC.:                              HOLDER:


By: /s/  James J. Weber                      /s/  Jerry G. Hilbert
James J. Weber, President
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.2

                               CERTIFICATE OF THE
                           CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
                             TOWER AUTOMOTIVE, INC.

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
         1350):

         I, Ernest T. Thomas, Chief Financial Officer of Tower Automotive, Inc.,
certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) that:

         (1)      The quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2003, which this statement accompanies, fully complies with
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and;

         (2)      The information contained in this quarterly report on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003, fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Tower
Automotive, Inc.

                                     TOWER AUTOMOTIVE, INC.


Date: May 9, 2003                    By: /s/ Ernest T. Thomas
                                         ---------------------------------
                                         Ernest T. Thomas
                                     Its: Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
#### Miller v. Dale.

1. Trespassing Animals: distraint: sale: notice to owner to pay damages. The township trastee? any proceed to sell trespassing animals to pry the damages legally assessed by them, without giving the owner notice of the amount of such damages and demanding payment. He is presumed to taka notice of the damages assessed, and to understand his duty to pay them without demand.

*Appeal from Decatur Circuit Court.*

Saturday, October 8.

AotioN in replevin to recover certain bogs distrained by defendant. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion.

*Ma/rion F. Stoolcey*and *Bullock &*Hoffman, for appellant.

*E. W.*Curry, for appellee.

Seevers, J.

The plaintiff was the owner of certain hogs which were trespassing on the premises of the defendant, who lawfully distrained them, and fully complied with the law in every respect; and so did the township trustees up to the time of the assessment of damages, as provided in section 1454 of the Code, which, or rather as much as is deemed necessary to set out, is as follows : “ When two or more trustees have assembled, they shall proceed to view and assess the damages, and the amount to be paid for keeping the stock ; and, if the person or persons owning such distrained stock refuse to pay such damages so assessed, the trustees shall post up notices * * * that said stock ****. * will be sold ” at a stated time and place. The trustees posted up such notices, but failed to give the plaintiff notice of the amount of damages assessed by them, and failed to demand of him that he should pay the damages as assessed. We are asked to determine whether such notice or demand was essential or not.

*471The argument of counsel for tlie appellant is based on the word “refuse.” It is said there cannot be a refusal unless a person at least has notice of that which it is assumed he has refused to perform. It is not claimed that the statute in terms requires such notice or demand, but that such is the only fair inference and construction. In considering this question, we must assume that the plaintiff had been lawfully notified that his hogs had been distrained, and of the time and place the trustees would meet for the purpose of assessing the damages. Having such notice, he, for all purposes connected with the matter in hand, must be presumed to be present. Such' being the case, he will also be presumed to have notice of what the trustees did, and, if he failed to comply therewith, it must be presumed he knowingly refused to do so. Besides this, the notice of the sale required to be posted up must be regarded as sufficient notice of what the trustees did, for the reason that none other is required to be given. The property was lawfully in the possession of the law, and the plaintiff was lawfully notified of such fact? and opportunity given him to defend and protect his right thereto, and his interest therein, and the fact that he voluntarily omitted to appear before the trustees is wholly immaterial.

The question we are asked to determine must be answered in the negative, and the judgment of the circuit court

REVERSED.
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 ARKONA,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,  Leland  H.
Boardman,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant  to 18
U.S.C.,  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that 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.


/s/ Leland H. Boardman
----------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
November 15, 2005