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





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**


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





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of World Am, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert A.
      Hovee, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350,
      as
      adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





Dated:
                November 15, 2007
            /s/
                Robert A. HoveeBy:
                Robert A. HoveeIts:
                President





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      World Am, Inc. and will be retained by World Am, Inc. and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

KEVIN C. MORGAN, II,

Plaintiff,

CITY OF COLUMBUS, OHIO, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17CV829

CHIEF JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY

Magistrate Judge Dcavers

ENTRY OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement reached by the parties in this matter,

which the parties have submitted to the Court, and which is incorporated by reference herein, this

case is hereby dismissed with prejudice, subject to this Court's retention ofjurisdiction to enforce

the terms of their agreement, with dismissal to be held in abeyance until the City Council of

Columbus has approved the settlement.

The parties shall notify the Court upon the City Council's approval and file the final

settlement agreement at that time for incorporation in the docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 1, 2021

ALGENON L. MARBLEY

UNITEI>«TATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case: 2:17-cv-00829-ALM-EPD Doc #: 48 Filed: 09/01/21 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 4666
#### Davidson *v.*Messing.

4-8651

215 S. W. 2d 138

Opinion delivered November 29, 1948.

*Northcutt*& *Northcutt,*for appellant.

*W. G. Wiley,*for appellee.

Smith, J.

Appellee brought' this suit to recover judgment on a note executed to his order by appellant for the entire purchase price of a tract of land, and he prayed *228the foreclosure of a mortgage on the land given to secure the note.

The execution of the note and mortgage is not denied, but an answer was filed in which appellant claimed credit on seven items totalling $1,501.40, which she alleged “are due the defendant and are supposed to be applied on the note and mortgage set up in the complaint of the plaintiff.”

Much testimony was offered upon these items and the court made the general finding that the note had not been paid and that appellant was not entitled to any of the credits claimed. The decree is not abstracted by appellant, nor'were any of the pleadings, nor 'is there any abstract of the testimony upon which the decree was based.

To some extent appellee has supplied the testimony as to the various credits claimed, but there was no attempt to furnish the abstract which appellant should have made, but failed to make. The testimony supplied related to the defenses to the alleged credits. The court expressed the opinion that the testimony was too .confused and conflicting to form the basis of a judgment, and that appellant had not shown that she was entitled to any of the credits claimed, and all were disallowed and a decree was rendered awarding judgment on the note and ordering the foreclosure of the mortgage which secured it. Only a careful reading of the voluminous and conflicting testimony, none of which is abstracted by appellant, would disclose whether the court’s finding was correct or not. In other words, there has been no substantial compliance with Rule IX and in some respects, no compliance at all.

The appeal must therefore be dismissed for this reason and it is so ordered.
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 Organic Soils.com, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ray
L. Smith, Chief Executive 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  result of operations of the
Company.




                         By: /s/ Ray L. Smith
                         ----------------------
                         Ray  L  Smith
                         Chief  Executive  Officer
                         November 13,  2002
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a Priority Mail Express International, Priority Mail International, First-Class Package International Service & Commercial ePacket contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Competitive Product List in the Mail Classification Schedule.

# DATES:

*Date of notice:*                         January 10, 2022.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher C. Meyerson, (202) 268-7820.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 15, 2021, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express International, Priority Mail International, First-Class Package International Service & Commercial ePacket Contract 11 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2022-31 and CP2022-38.                

Joshua Hofer,

Attorney, Ethics and Legal Compliance.

[FR Doc. 2022-00210 Filed 1-7-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

Joshua Bowen,
Plaintiff(s),
Case Number: 1:17cv807
vs.
Chief Judge Susan J, Dlott
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant(s).
ORDER

This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United States Magistrate
Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the
pleadings and filed with this Court on January 31, 2019 a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13).
Subsequently, the plaintiff filed objections to such Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14).

The Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered
de novo all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does
determine that such Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, defendant’s decision is found to be SUPPORTED by SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE. This case is hereby TERMINATED from the docket of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

detan. | Sat)

Judge Susan J. Diqtt
United States District Court
Case: 3:17-mj-00098-SLO Doc #: 4 Filed: 03/21/17 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 25
Exhibit 32.1

          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A - 14(b) OF THE SECURITIES
           EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
               OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Spear & Jackson, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William Fletcher,
acting Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

1)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ William Fletcher
------------------------------
William Fletcher
Acting Chief Executive Officer

August 14, 2006
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

THURMAN MILLER, :

 : Case No. 3:17-cv-00414 

 Plaintiff, : 

 : District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

vs. : Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington 

 : 

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL : DECISION AND ENTRY

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION :

 :

 Defendant. :

 The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report and Recommendations of 

United States Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington (Doc. #18), to whom this case was 

originally referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and noting that no objections have been 

filed thereto and that the time for filing such objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) has 

expired, hereby ADOPTS said Report and Recommendations. 

 It is therefore ORDERED that: 

1. The Report and Recommendations docketed on January 10, 2020 (Doc. #18) is 

ADOPTED in full; 

2. The Motion for Allowance of Attorney Fees filed by Plaintiff’s counsel (Doc. 

#15) is GRANTED, and the Commissioner is directed to pay Plaintiff’s attorney 

fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) in the total amount of $13,475.00; 

3. Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to pay Plaintiff the amount—$3,827.00—of 

attorney fees previously awarded counsel under the Equal Access to Justice Act 

(Doc. #14); and 

4. The case remains terminated on the Court’s docket. 

February 12, 2020 *s/Thomas M. Rose 

 

 Thomas M. Rose 

 United States District Judge
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-60635

Summary Calendar

RICARDO BRYAN NEWSOME,

Plaintiff−Appellant,

versus

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI; 

HARRISON COUNTY ADULT DETENTION CENTER; 

HARRISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT; 

GULFPORT POLICE DEPARTMENT; JOEL SMITH; et al.,

Defendants−Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

No. 1:18-CV-178

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ricardo Newsome, Mississippi prisoner #123359, appeals the dismissal 

of his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 complaint as frivolous and for failure to state 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 24, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-60635 Document: 00515248309 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/24/2019
No. 18-60635

2

a claim upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The 

district court reasoned that Newsome’s claims challenging his state conviction 

and sentence were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486−87 (1994). 

The court further reasoned that Newsome’s habeas corpus claim requesting his 

immediate release was unexhausted and therefore was subject to dismissal

without prejudice. On appeal, Newsome re-urges his contentions that the state 

trial court’s alleged errors resulted in a void conviction and illegal sentence. 

Newsome does not address the district court’s ruling that his suit was 

Heck-barred or that his habeas claim was unexhausted. Although this court 

liberally construes pro se filings, a pro se party “must still brief the issues and 

reasonably comply with the standards of [Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28].” Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). When an appellant fails to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as

though he had not appealed that issue. Brinkmann v. Dall. Cty. Deputy Sheriff 

Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Because Newsome’s brief does not 

address the bases of the district court’s ruling, he has abandoned any challenge 

to the dismissal. See id.

The appeal is without arguable merit and is DISMISSED as frivolous. 

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The 

dismissal of this appeal as frivolous and the district court’s dismissal of the 

complaint in part as frivolous and for failure to state a claim each count as a 

strike for purposes of § 1915(g). See Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 

1761−64 (2015). Newsome is hereby warned that once he accumulates three 

strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed 

while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent 

danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

 Case: 18-60635 Document: 00515248309 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/24/2019
3

4

5

(Mm-1) 0

1

2

3

4

5

YELL2

Yellowstone NP

Grand Teton NP

Teton Wilderness

NOAB1

North Absaroka Wilderness

Washakie Wilderness

BRID1

Bridger Wilderness

Fitzpatrick Wilderness

Extinction (Mm-1)

Amm. Sulfate Amm. Nitrate OMC EC Soil CM Sea Salt

Light Extinction by Pollutant Species for Wyoming Class I Areas 20% Best Days (2000-2004)

Amm. Sulfate Amm. Nitrate OMC EC Soil CM Sea Salt

YELL2

 Yellowstone NP

 Grand Teton NP

 Teton Wilderness 1.47 0.72 1.12 0.31 0.1 0.24 0.01

NOAB1

 North Absaroka Wilderness

 Washakie Wilderness 1.11 0.37 0.8 0.16 0.12 0.71 0.02

BRID1

Bridger Wilderness

Fitzpatrick Wilderness 1.46 0.43 0.8 0.36 0.09 0.25 0.008

Site Method Year N

SO4 

Extinction

NO3 

Extinction

OMC 

Extinction

EC 

Extinction

Soil 

Extinction

CM 

Extinction

SeaSalt 

Extinction

YELL2 NIA 2000 19 1.68 0.88 1.13 0.15 0.09 0.25 0.05

YELL2 NIA 2001 21 1.92 0.76 1.16 0.4 0.12 0.19 0

YELL2 NIA 2002 21 1.32 0.82 1.14 0.31 0.13 0.27 0

YELL2 NIA 2003 20 1.12 0.53 0.92 0.24 0.09 0.24 0

YELL2 NIA 2004 22 1.33 0.62 1.27 0.46 0.08 0.26 0.02

1.474 0.722 1.124 0.312 0.102 0.242 0.014

Site Method Year N

SO4 

Extinction

NO3 

Extinction

OMC 

Extinction

EC 

Extinction

Soil 

Extinction

CM 

Extinction

SeaSalt 

Extinction

NOAB1 NIA 2002 21 1.26 0.45 0.77 0.18 0.15 0.74 0

NOAB1 NIA 2003 21 0.91 0.3 0.77 0.15 0.12 0.79 0.04

NOAB1 NIA 2004 22 1.15 0.36 0.85 0.15 0.09 0.6 0.02

1.106667 0.37 0.796667 0.16 0.12 0.71 0.02

Site Method Year N

SO4 

Extinction

NO3 

Extinction

OMC 

Extinction

EC 

Extinction

Soil 

Extinction

CM 

Extinction

SeaSalt 

Extinction

BRID1 NIA 2000 21 1.87 0.39 0.99 0.28 0.09 0.26 0.01

BRID1 NIA 2001 22 1.65 0.5 0.69 0.64 0.12 0.3 0

BRID1 NIA 2002 22 1.4 0.51 0.75 0.36 0.08 0.23 0

BRID1 NIA 2003 23 1.11 0.33 0.83 0.25 0.08 0.21 0.03

BRID1 NIA 2004 24 1.25 0.4 0.73 0.25 0.07 0.25 0

1.456 0.426 0.798 0.356 0.088 0.25 0.008

0

1

2

3

4

5

YELL2

Yellowstone NP

Grand Teton NP

Teton Wilderness

NOAB1

North Absaroka Wilderness

Washakie Wilderness

BRID1

Bridger Wilderness

Fitzpatrick Wilderness

Extinction (Mm-1)

Amm. Sulfate Amm. Nitrate OMC EC Soil CM Sea Salt
GREGORY ANDERSON

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 1539

_______ ______________________/

Opinion filed August 3, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. Mark W. Moseley , Judge

.

Gregory Anderson, pro se , Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., ROWE and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 64**  **2 9** 

ANTHONY D A WAIN SHAW , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. GENE M. JOHNSON , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Ea stern Distri ct of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Mark S. Davis , District Judge. ( 2 :09

- cv - 00 126

- MSD

- TEM )

Submitted : December 16, 2010 Decided: December 27, 2010

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Antho ny Dawain Shaw, Appellant Pro Se
. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III , Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Dawain Shaw seeks to appeal the district

c ourt’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (200 6) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstra ting that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have indepe ndently reviewed the record and conclude that Shaw has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
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 Interior

###### National Indian Gaming Commission

          - 25 CFR Part 559
          - RIN 3141-AA73

# AGENCY:

National Indian Gaming Commission, Department of the Interior.

# ACTION:

Proposed rule; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        This document corrects the preamble to a proposed rule published in the                         **Federal Register**                         of December 9, 2021, regarding the Submission of Gaming Ordinances or Resolutions. The document contained incorrect dates for submitting comments. This correction clarifies that comments are due February 7, 2022.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Hoenig, 202-632-7003.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Correction

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of December 1, 2021, in proposed rule FR Doc. 2021-25843, on page 70067, in the third column, change the                     **DATES**                     caption to read:                

# DATES:

 Written comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before February 7, 2022.

Dated: January 6, 2022.

Michael Hoenig,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2022-00636 Filed 1-13-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7565-01-P
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of the Injet Corporation
(the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30,
2005 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

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


                             /s/ James M. Cassidy
                                 President and Director and
                                 Chief Executivie Officer,
                                 Chief Financial Officer and
                                 Principal Accounting Officer
Date:  November 13, 2005
Order entered October 8, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00577-CV

JOSE G. GARCIA, Appellant

V.

FABRICIO & MICHELE SOLORIO, Appellees

On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 11-10644

ORDER

The Court has before it appellees’ October 1, 2013 unopposed second motion for 

extension of time to file their brief. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS appellees to 

file their brief within five days of the date of this order. No further extensions will be granted 

absent a showing of exceptional circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE