alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32(b)
                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                  AS ADDED BY
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection with the Quarterly Report of Provident Community Bancshares,
Inc.  (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Richard H. Flake,
Executive  Vice  President  and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant  to  18 U.S.C.  1350, as added by 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  Company  as  of  and  for  the  period covered by the Report.


                                     /s/  Richard  H.  Flake
                                     -----------------------------
                                     Richard  H.  Flake
                                     Executive  Vice  President  and
                                     Chief  Financial  Officer


Date:  May  12,  2010
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT NICHOLAS R. CROWDER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. LAWRENCE KELLEY; FRANK L. No. 99-1361 MONGE; PATRICIA S. CONNOR; DOUGLAS SISK; JAMES A. DRACH; JOHN MAYER; LEONARD GREEN, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA-99-477-S) Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: October 27, 1999 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Nicholas R. Crowder, Appellant Pro Se.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM: Appellant Nicholas R. Crowder appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition and denying his motion for a temporary restraining order. We have reviewed the record and the district court's orders and find no reversible error. It is not clear from the record whether Crowder's Maryland charges were nolle prosequied under Md. R. Proc. § 4-247 (1998), or "stetted" under Md. R. Proc. § 4-248 (1998). In either event, Crowder is not entitled to relief. If the charges were nolle prosequied, Crowder is not in custody for purposes of § 2241 relief. If the charges were stetted, Crowder may be in custody for purposes of relief under § 2241, see Justices of Boston Mun. Court v. Lydon , 466 U.S. 294, 300-01 (1984). However, he has failed to exhaust state remedies. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court , 410 U.S. 484, 489-90 (1973). Crowder could have opposed the State's motion to stet his case. Instead, Crowder sought to have the charges dismissed with prejudice. Thus, if thecharges were stetted, Crowder must pursue his remaining state remedies before pursuing federal habeas relief. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny the following motions filed by Crowder seeking to: (1) compel the district court to correct the record and remand the case; (2) stay Maryland state court proceedings; (3) have an en banc hearing to compel the clerk's office to submit properly filed pleadings; (4) correct a clearly erroneous judgment; and (5) have an en banc review of motion to correct a maliciously erroneous record on appeal. We also denyCrowder's motion for oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2
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 the Treasury

###### Office of Foreign Assets Control

# AGENCY:

Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.

# DATES:

                        This action was issued on October 17, 2024. See                         **Supplementary Information**                         for relevant dates.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, 202-622-2420; or Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance, 202-622-2490 or                         *https://ofac.treasury.gov/​contact-ofac.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Electronic Availability

                    The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:                     *https://ofac.treasury.gov.*

## Notice of OFAC Action

On October 17, 2024, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
      ( print page 87458)    
      ( print page 87459)    
Lisa M. Palluconi,

Acting Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.

[FR Doc. 2024-25502 Filed 10-31-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          15,715
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  107,954
<ALLOWANCES>                                    16,953
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               549,955
<PP&E>                                         367,051
<DEPRECIATION>                                 182,450
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 798,055
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          974,372
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        14,827
<OTHER-SE>                                     333,465
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   798,055
<SALES>                                      1,628,784
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,023,091
<CGS>                                        1,023,091
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  365,489
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,439,744
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             107,988
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (282,092)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (282,092)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (282,092)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.01)



</TABLE>
#### Marcellus Solomon, Appellee, v. Findley McLennan, Appellant.

Attachment: damages : attorney fees. The defendant recovered judgment against the plaintiff for damages upon an attachment bond, and for court costs, but through oversight made no application for the taxation of attorney fees. After the judgment and cost had been paid, a motion for attorney fees was filed. *Held,*that the application came too late.

*Appeal from Cass District Court.*— ITon. N. W. Macy, J udge.

Saturday, October 25, 1890.

This was an action in attachment to recover damages alleged to have been sustained through the negligence of the defendant in permitting a stallion to escape and run at large. The defendant filed a cross-petition, claiming damages upon the attachment bond. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict and judgment ■for the defendant for five dollars. The ordinary costs for witness fees, court costs, and the like, were taxed to the plaintiff, and the judgment and costs were paid. *407Afterwards the defendant filed a motion for an allowance of attorney’s fees. . The motion was overruled. A petition was also filed asking, that attorney’s fees be taxed, and the petition was, on the motion of the plaintiff, stricken from the files. The defendant appeals.

*L. L. Delano*and *J. O.*Bryant, for appellant.

*Willard & Willard,*for appellee.

Eotiieook, O. J.

The trial was had, and judgment entered, at the February term, 1888, of the district-court. Afterwards the judgment and costs were paid. On the fifteenth day of February, 1889,. the defendant made his application to have an attorney’s fee taxed. The excuse, for not making the application when the judgment was entered was that by ‘"some oversight there was no fee taxed for the defendant’s attorney.” We must presume that this oversight was not that of the court or the clerk. Of course the court would not, of its own motion, tax the fee, and the clerk could not tax it because he had no power to determine the amount. We have then the case of a party failing to make any claim for an attorney’s fee until nearly a year after judgment, and after the whole controversy had been closed by payment in full of the judgment and costs. It is true that it is provided, by section 2961 of the Code, that, in an action on an attachment bond, in addition to actual damages sustained, recovery may be had for “reasonable attorney’s fees, to be fixed by the court.” Now, if the party entitled to recover the fees by some oversight makes no claim for attorney’s fees until after payment of the judgment and costs, it would seem that no good reason can be given for permitting the litigation to be opened up afresh, to allow evidence to be introduced to enable the court to fix the amount of an attorney’s fee, and enter up another judgment in the case.

The judgment of the district court is aeeiemmd, ■’
#### Stark, Appellant, vs. Monsted, Respondent.

For the appellant: *Sarto S. Balliet*of Appleton.

For the respondent: *Walter Melchior*of Appleton.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
EXHIBIT 99.2



                            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 Nanobac Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 18, 2003 (the "Report"), I,
John D. Stanton, 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) 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 result of operations of
          the Company.





/s/ John D. Stanton
-------------------

John D. Stanton

Chief Financial Officer

August 18, 2003
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 703

To amend section 922 of chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 24, 1999

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. INHOFE, and Mr.

HELMS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend section 922 of chapter 44 of title 18, United

States Code.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Brady Act Amend5 ments of 1999’’.

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATION OF COVERAGE OF BRADY ACT HAND7 GUNS.

8 Subsection (t) of section 922 of chapter 44 of title

9 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘firearm’’

10 in paragraphs (1), (2), (4), (5), and (6), and the first time
2

S 703 IS

1 it appears in paragraph (3), and inserting in lieu thereof

2 ‘‘handgun’’.

Æ
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 829

To deauthorize the project for navigation, Searsport Harbor, Searsport,

Maine.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 19, 1999

Ms. SNOWE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

A BILL

To deauthorize the project for navigation, Searsport Harbor,

Searsport, Maine.

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

3 SECTION 1. DEAUTHORIZATION OF PROJECT FOR NAVIGA4 TION, SEARSPORT HARBOR, MAINE.

5 (a) DEAUTHORIZATION.—The portion of the project

6 for navigation, Searsport Harbor, Searsport, Maine, au7 thorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of

8 1962 (76 Stat. 1173), described in subsection (b) is not

9 authorized after the date of enactment of this Act.
2

•S 829 IS

1 (b) DESCRIPTION.—The portion of the project re2 ferred to in subsection (a) is the portion of the 35-foot

3 turning basin beginning at a point with coordinates

4 N225,008.38, E395,464.26, thence running north 43 de5 grees 49 minutes 53.4 seconds east 362.001 feet to a point

6 N225,269.52, E395,714.96, thence running south 71 de7 grees 27 minutes 33.0 seconds east 1,309.201 feet to a

8 point N224,853.22, E396,956.21, thence running north

9 84 degrees 3 minutes 45.7 seconds west 1,499.997 feet

10 to the point of origin.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Wave Technologies International, Inc. and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements. The Registrants Financial Statements as
of and for the period ended Oct. 31, 1999
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                             841
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,174
<ALLOWANCES>                                       449
<INVENTORY>                                      1,214
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,585
<PP&E>                                          11,308
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,355
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,894
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,605
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,079
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,027
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,894
<SALES>                                          9,215
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,493
<CGS>                                            2,082
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,295
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,710
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    53
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  31
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    386
<INCOME-TAX>                                       154
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                232
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       232
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.06



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.a
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADDED BY
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Provident Community Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Dwight V. Neese, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as added by 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 Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.
 
 
 /s/ Dwight V. Neese
 Dwight V. Neese
 President and Chief Executive Officer
 Date: August 7, 2009
#### Susan L. Johnson et al., Appellants, v Leach Company, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Ronald Carmody et al., Third-Party Defendants; Mack Trucks, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[774 NYS2d 598]

— In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), dated December 9, 2002, which granted the motion of the defendant third-party plaintiff, Leach Company, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted the motion of the third-party defendant Mack Trucks, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as granted the motion of the third-party defendant Mack Trucks, Inc., is dismissed, as the plaintiff is not aggrieved by that portion of the order *(see*CPLR 5511); and it is further

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

*736Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.

The defendant third-party plaintiff, Leach Company (hereinafter Leach), made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that any finding as to proximate cause would be based on mere speculation *(see Mazzone v Lazaroff,*305 AD2d 558, 559 [2003]; *Johnson v Sniffen,*265 AD2d 304 [1999]; *Scheer v City of New York,*211 AD2d 778 [1995]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see generally Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted Leach’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, Krausman and Cozier, JJ., concur.
#### J. I. BLACKBURN v. A. J. FAIR.

*Trial*— Special *Instructions, When Ashed.*

The failure of the Judge to give instructions which he might have properly given if asked in apt time, is not ground for reversal if the motion is made for first time after verdict.

Civil actior, tried at July Special Term, 1891, of Stoices Superior Court, *Graves, J.,*presiding.

The defendant appealed.

*Mr. 0. B. Watson,*for plaintiff.

No counsel *contra.*

MerrimoN, C. J.:

There was no exception to evidence received or to that excluded on the trial in this case. Nor were there any objections to the instructions the Court gave the jury. After verdict, on the motion for a new trial, the defendant, in support of his motion, contended that it should have given the jury certain instructions his counsel for the first time then suggested. The motion was denied.

The Court having given the jury appropriate instructions, as it appears it did, without objection, if the defendant desired that it should give fuller or special instructions, he should have stated the same in apt time. It was too late after verdict to complain that instructions that the Court might have given were not given. *Davis*v. *Council,*92 N. C., 725; *Branton*v. *O’Briant,*93 N. C., 99; *State*v. *Debnam,*98 N. C., 712; *State*v. *Bailey,*100 N. C., 528.

Affirmed.