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

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Star Gas Partners, L.P. (the Partnership) and Star Gas Finance Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Daniel P. Donovan, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Partnership and Star Gas Finance Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)
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 and Star Gas
Finance Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                 |  |                                        |  |                                      
|---------------- |  | -------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                 |  | STAR GAS PARTNERS, L.P.               
|                 |  | STAR GAS FINANCE COMPANY              
|                 | 
|                 |  | By: KESTREL HEAT LLC (General Partner)
|                 |  |                                       
|February 3, 2010 |  | By:                                    |  | /s/ DANIEL P. DONOVAN                
|                 |  |                                        |  | Daniel P. Donovan                    
|                 |  |                                        |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                 |  |                                        |  | Star Gas Partners, L.P.              
|                 |  |                                        |  | Star Gas Finance Company
No. 90-5904.

#### Whisenant *v.*Kentucky.

Sup. Ct. Ky. Cer-tiorari denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No.DA 19-0070 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ARTHUR RAY PEOPLES,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER Upon consideration ofAppellant's motion, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Supplement the Record is GRANTED. The March 16, 2018 body camera video from Officer Alexis Berger of the Missoula Police Department shall be placed in the file ofthis Court for this cause. Dated this fid

r ay ofJuly, 2021.

ChiefJustice 07/01/2021

Case Number: DA 19-0070
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jones R. Woods, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 1013]

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the jury did not fail to give the evidence the weight it should have been accorded and that the verdict is *841not against the weight of the evidence *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495).

In view of defendant’s extensive criminal record and history of anti-social behavior, we further conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant as a persistent felony offender to two concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 15 years to life for his conviction of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the second degree (Penal Law § 165.06) and criminal possession of stolen properly in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 165.45). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Kubiniec, J. — Unauthorized Use Vehicle, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Do-err and Davis, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      87,633,719
<SECURITIES>                                 9,037,479
<RECEIVABLES>                               35,830,237
<ALLOWANCES>                                   330,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           151,775,862
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             283,132,179
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       23,674,994
<BONDS>                                    144,303,984
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       260,737
<OTHER-SE>                                 106,802,464
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               283,132,179
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            84,620,459
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               69,741,185
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,480,021
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,513,888
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             13,399,253
<INCOME-TAX>                                 5,085,503
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          8,313,750
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,313,750
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.31
        

</TABLE>
No. 99-50681

-1-

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-50681

Summary Calendar

 

ROBERT A. CHICK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

W.K. BALDRIDGE; W.L. BAYS; HOWARD

L. SUBLETT; SHERRI ADELSTEIN,

District Clerk, 16th Judicial District,

Denton County, Texas; JIM WILLETT, SR.,

Warden,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-99-CV-173-SS

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

May 10, 2000

Before POLITZ, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Former Texas state prisoner Robert A. Chick seeks leave to

appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) the district court’s dismissal

with prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim based upon Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Even were Chick able to show that

Heck requirements do not bar his claim, his appeal would lack 

arguable merit because it would be time-barred. See Henson-El v.

Rogers, 923 F.2d 51, 52 (5th Cir. 1991). We find that Chick’s
No. 99-50681

-2-

contention that he only discovered in 1998 that fraud had been

committed in connection with his 1948 conviction to be without

arguable merit. We also find Chick’s argument that the time bar

and Heck doctrine do not apply to him because he is proceeding

under 28 U.S.C. § 1655 and/or Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 to be without

arguable merit.

Chick’s motion to supplement the record, to the extent that

it requests introduction of evidence outside the record is

DENIED. Because Chick’s appeal lacks arguable merit, it is

frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Chick’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal is therefore DENIED, and

his appeal is DISMISSED. 

MOTION TO PROCEED IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; ALL OTHER

OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED.
No. 86-1131.

#### Fincher *v.*Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security et al.

Appeal from C. A. 11th Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.
No. 82-1034.

#### Cirillo et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6155

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EMMANUEL UZUEGBUNAM,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District

Judge. (3:96-cr-00043-REP; 3:06-cv-00015-REP)

Submitted: April 27, 2006 Decided: May 8, 2006

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emmanuel Uzuegbunam, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Gerald McBride,

WILEY, REIN & FIELDING, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Emmanuel Uzuegbunam seeks to appeal the district court’s

order construing as a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000), his motion to recall the district court’s order previously

dismissing his petition for a writ of error coram nobis, and then

dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction as an unauthorized

successive motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order

in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion

solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will

not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition

states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and

(2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the

district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Uzuegbunam has not made the requisite

showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003).

Finally, in accordance with United States v. Winestock,

340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe Uzuegbunam’s notice

of appeal and informal brief as a motion for authorization under 28

U.S.C. § 2244 (2000), to file a successive habeas corpus motion.
- 3 -

To obtain permission to bring a second or successive § 2255 motion,

a movant must show that his claim: (1) “relies on a new rule of

constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review

by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable” or (2)

relies on newly discovered facts that tend to establish the

movant’s innocence. 28 U.S.C. § 2244. We conclude that Uzuegbunam

has not satisfied either standard.

Accordingly, we deny Uzuegbunam’s implicit application

for leave to file a successive § 2255 motion, deny his motion for

a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We

dispense with 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
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, George D. Johnson,Jr., certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Extended Stay America, Inc. (the “Company”);

 

2. Based on my knowledge,this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

 

4. The Company’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:

 

a) designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

 

b) evaluated theeffectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

 

c) disclosed in thisreport any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Company’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)  that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5. The Company’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function):

 

a) all significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theCompany’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

b) any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| November 12, 2003           |
|----------------------------------|
|                             |
|                             |
| /s/  GEORGE D. JOHNSON, JR. |   |
| George D. Johnson, Jr.           |
| Chief Executive Officer          |

 

----
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsMemoranda of Understanding

# Memoranda of Understanding - 2003

*This page includes links to files in non-HTML format. See Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools for more information.*

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, March 16, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2023
          - 2022
          - 2021
          - 2020
          - 2019
          - 2018
          - 2017
          - 2016
          - 2015
          - 2013
          - 2011
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2005
          - 2004
          - 2003
          - 2002
          - 2001
          - 2000
          - 1999
          - 1998
          - 1997
          - 1996
          - 1995
          - 1994
          - 1993
          - 1992
          - 1991
          - 1990
          - 1989
          - 1988
          - 1987
          - 1986
          - 1985
          - 1984

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, March 16, 2020
No. 90-6198.

#### Rodriguez *v.*Young, Warden.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1637 

To amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to authorize 

private parties to compel the Bureau to seek sanctions by filing civil 

actions, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 20, 2017 

Mr. MESSER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 

to authorize private parties to compel the Bureau to 

seek sanctions by filing civil actions, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Reigning In of Govern5 mental Hostility To Sovereignty at the CFPB Act of 

6 2017’’ or the ‘‘RIGHTS at the CFPB Act of 2017’’. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1637 IH

1 SEC. 2. PRIVATE PARTIES AUTHORIZED TO COMPEL THE 

2 BUREAU TO SEEK SANCTIONS BY FILING 

3 CIVIL ACTIONS; ADJUDICATIONS DEEMED AC4 TIONS. 

5 Section 1053 of the Consumer Financial Protection 

6 Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5563) is amended by adding at 

7 the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(f) PRIVATE PARTIES AUTHORIZED TO COMPEL

9 THE BUREAU TO SEEK SANCTIONS BY FILING CIVIL AC10 TIONS.— 

11 ‘‘(1) TERMINATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PRO12 CEEDING.—In the case of any person who is a party 

13 to a proceeding brought by the Bureau under this 

14 section, to which chapter 5 of title 5, United States 

15 Code, applies, and against whom an order imposing 

16 a cease and desist order or a penalty may be issued 

17 at the conclusion of the proceeding, that person 

18 may, not later than 20 days after receiving notice of 

19 such proceeding, and at that person’s discretion, re20 quire the Bureau to terminate the proceeding. 

21 ‘‘(2) CIVIL ACTION AUTHORIZED.—If a person 

22 requires the Bureau to terminate a proceeding pur23 suant to paragraph (1), the Bureau may bring a 

24 civil action against that person for the same remedy 

25 that might be imposed. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1637 IH

1 ‘‘(g) ADJUDICATIONS DEEMED ACTIONS.—Any ad2 ministrative adjudication commenced under this section 

3 shall be deemed an ‘action’ for purposes of section 

4 1054(g).’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit
31.1 CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Shant S. Hovnanian, certify that: 1.
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q
  of Speedus Corp.;2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain
  any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
  necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
  which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
  covered by this report;3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and
  other financial information included in this report,  fairly present in all material respects
  the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
  registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
The registrants other certifying officer and I are
  responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
  procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
  registrant and have:(a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
  caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
  supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
  including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
  those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
  prepared;(b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants
  disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
  conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
  procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
  evaluation; and(c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the
  registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
  the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal
  quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
  reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
  over financial reporting; and5.
The registrants other certifying officer and I have
  disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of  internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
  auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or
  persons performing the equivalent functions):(a)
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses
  in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which
  are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
  process, summarize and report financial information; and(b)
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
  management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
  internal control over financial reporting.  Date:
November 14, 2006By:
/s/ Shant S. HovnanianName:
Shant S. HovnanianTitle:
Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive
  Officer 20
Exibit 10.1

                   AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT
                             FOR WHOLESALE FINANCING
                                (Amendment No. 3)

This Amendment to Amended and Restated Agreement for Wholesale Financing
("Amendment") is made by and between Deutsche Financial Services Corporation
("DFS") and Featherlite Mfg., Inc. ("Dealer").

         WHEREAS, DFS and Dealer entered into that certain Amended and Restated
Agreement for Wholesale Financing dated October 6, 1997, as amended by that
certain Amendment to Amended and Restated Agreement for Wholesale Financing
(Amendment No. 1) dated April 1, 1998, and that certain Amendment to Amended and
Restated Agreement for Wholesale Financing (Amendment No. 2) dated May 8, 1998
(together, the "Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, DFS and Dealer desire to amend the Agreement as provided
herein.

         NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises, and for other
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, DFS and Dealer agree as follows:

         1. Amendment of Current Ratio. Paragraph 13.1(c) of the Agreement is
         deleted and amended to read in its entirety as follows:

                  "(c) a ratio of Current Tangible Assets to current liabilities
                  of not less than ONE AND ONE-HALF to ONE (1.5:1)."

         2. No Other Modifications. Except as expressly modified or amended
         herein, all other terms and provisions of the Agreement shall remain
         unmodified and in full force and effect and the Agreement, as hereby
         amended, is ratified and confirmed by DFS and Dealer.

         3. Capitalized Terms. Except as otherwise defined herein, all
         capitalized terms will have the same meanings set forth in the
         Agreement.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, DFS and Dealer have executed this Amendment as of
the 25th day of March, 2000.

                                           DEUTSCHE FINANCIAL SERVICES
                                                 CORPORATION

                                           By:      /s/ Leonard F. Buchan
                                                    Leonard F. Buchan
                                                    Vice President

                                           FEATHERLITE MFG., INC.

                                           By       /s/ C. Clement
                                                    Conrad Clement
                                                    President