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 on Form 10-Q of Lincare Holdings Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John P. Byrnes, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/S/ JOHN P. BYRNESJohn P. Byrnes
Chief Executive Officer


May 6, 2010
#### Barnard et al. ad’rs. et al. vs. Lafayette County.

Swamp and overflowed lands: *(The State vs. the County Court of Crittenden County, ante.)*

*Appeal from Lafayette Circuit Court.*

Garland, for the appellants.

Hempstead, Solicitor General, for the appellee.

Mr. Compton, Specie' Judge,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The constitutionality of so much of the act of the General Assembly, approved 11th January, 1855, as provides for the taxation of certain swamp and overflowed lands, is the question involved in this case. The same question was involved in the case of *The State vs. The County Court of Crittenden County;*and we refer to the decision of this Court (made ar the present term) in that case, as decisive of this.

*Judgment reversed.*

Hanly, J., not sitting in this case.
**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 Annual Report of Enigma Software Group, Inc. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
      M. Scarlata, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that, 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/
      Richard M. Scarlata





Chief
      Financial Officer


March
      23,
      2007
glt-ex1021_7.htm



EXHIBIT 10.20(A)

 

SCHEDULE OF CHANGE IN CONTROL EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS 

The Registrant has entered into Change in Control Agreements with the following employees.  

Christopher W. Astley **

Eileen L. Beck **

David C. Elder *

Samuel L. Hillard **

John P. Jacunski *

Dante C. Parrini *

Martin Rapp *

 

*   In accordance with the Instructions to Item 601 of Regulation S-K, the Registrant has omitted filing copies of the agreements because they are substantially identical to the Form of Change in Control Employment Agreement by and between P. H. Glatfelter Company and certain employees, which is filed as Exhibit 10(J) to the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008. 

** In accordance with the Instructions to Item 601 of Regulation S-K, the Registrant has omitted filing copies of the agreements because they are substantially identical to the Form of Change in Control Employment Agreement by and between P. H. Glatfelter Company and certain employees, which is filed as Exhibit 10(Q) to the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR E N B ANC R ECONSIDERATION

Appellate case name: Felicia Nicole Jones v. Macy’s, Eric Limbocker, Citibank, and

Houston Federal Credit Union

Appellate case number: 01

- 14

- 00143

- CV

Trial court case number: 74030

Trial cou rt: 239th District Court of Brazoria County

It is ordered that Appellant’s Motion s for Reconsideration En Banc , filed March 18, 2015

and March 20, 2015, are denied

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

Acting for the En Banc Court*

Date: April 9 , 2015

*En banc court consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings, Keyes, Higley, Bland,

Massengale, Brown, Huddle, and Lloyd.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           7
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000,000


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           745
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                          0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                            0
<EQUITIES>                                     427
<MORTGAGE>                                     0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                  0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 1176
<CASH>                                         31
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             27
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         3
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1625
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                897
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            44
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                          0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2
<OTHER-SE>                                     626
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1625
<PREMIUMS>                                     93
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            69
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             3
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 0
<BENEFITS>                                     121
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    3
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           66
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (25)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (10)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (91)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (1)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (15)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (1)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1)
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 936
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                            118
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                              57
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                             36
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                               178
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                897
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                        (54)



</TABLE>
#### Samuel James JACKSON, Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Appellees

No. 15-5196

September Term, 2016

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed On: March 17, 2017

Samuel James Jackson, Pro Se

R. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney’s Office, (USA) Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Respondents-Appellees United States of America, Federal Communications Commission

BEFORE: Rogers and Millett, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(3). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order, filed June 22, 2015, dismissing appellant’s “Petition for Issuance of the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus and All Writs,” be affirmed. The petition provided no notice of a claim for the declaratory and injunctive relief sought. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (requiring “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief’).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
```

[Federal Register: January 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 19)]
[Notices]               
[Page 4904]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29ja10-132]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2009-61]

 
Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

Correction

    In notice document 2010-808 beginning on page 2925 in the issue of 
Tuesday, January 19, 2010, make the following correction:
    On page 2925, in the third column, under the DATE: heading, 
``August 10, 2010'' is corrected to read ``February 8, 2010''.

[FR Doc. C1-2010-808 Filed 1-28-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```
Gary W. TURLEY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0890

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0000883474
<NAME>                          Enex Oil & Gas Income Program VI - Sr 1, L.P.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   sep-30-1996
<CASH>                                         5415
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  41172
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               46587
<PP&E>                                         1148605
<DEPRECIATION>                                 532550
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 683523
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          102552
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     580971
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   683523
<SALES>                                        281965
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               281965
<CGS>                                          144291
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  457989
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               313698
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (178380)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

CRESCENT BANKING COMPANY

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Crescent Banking Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Leland W. Brantley, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, based on my knowledge, 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  |  |                                                             
| |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | 
| |  |  |  | /S/ LELAND W. BRANTLEY, JR.                                 
| |  |  |  | Leland W. Brantley, Jr.
Chief Financial Officer
May 17, 2010

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent
required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
EX PARTE Kenneth JORDAN

CR-15-1476

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Habeas corpus pet. dismissed.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1523 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to harmonize the definition 

of employee with the common law. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 2, 2021 

Ms. STEFANIK (for herself, Mrs. STEEL, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. COLE, 

Mrs. MILLER of West Virginia, Mrs. RODGERS of Washington, and Mr. 

HERN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 

harmonize the definition of employee with the common law. 

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 ‘‘Modern Worker Em5 powerment Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1523 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS 

2 ACT OF 1938 TO HARMONIZE THE DEFINITION 

3 OF EMPLOYEE. 

4 (a) DEFINITION OF EMPLOYEE.—Section 3(e)(1) of 

5 the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 

6 203(e)(1)) is amended by inserting before the period the 

7 following: ‘‘, as determined under the usual common law 

8 rules’’. 

9 (b) DEFINITION OF EMPLOY.—Section 3(g) of the 

10 Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203(g)) is 

11 amended by inserting ‘‘an employee’’ after ‘‘permit’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
R.B., the Father, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES and Guardian ad Litem Program, Appellees.

No. 3D17-2352

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Marcus B. HARRIS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. William F. CRENSHAW, CEO of Publix Supermarkets, Inc., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-5081

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 26, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition for writ of certiorari and supplemental petition for writ of certiorari are denied.

NORTHCUTT, MORRIS, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Donald HELPHENSTINE, Doc #H09715, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3713

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 14, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           3,154
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              83
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                27,614
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             764
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               755
<LOANS>                                         26,911
<ALLOWANCE>                                        401
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  67,813
<DEPOSITS>                                      49,515
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                768
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           705
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,752
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  67,813
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,023
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,742
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   105
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 3,870
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,482
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,542
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,328
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,568
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                748,910
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     748,910
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   323,733
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.60
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Gregory B. MYERS, Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3995

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

DISMISSED.
C.T., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2083

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mirwaiss AMINZADA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-6826

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 22, 2016

Mirwaiss Aminzada, Appellant Pro Se. Lauren Elyse Marziani, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Mirwaiss Aminzada seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2256 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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 motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

*815We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Aminzada has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Cedric MORRISSETTE v. STATE

CR-16-0122

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Lazonia THOMAS, Appellant, v. Noelle PADRON, Appellee.

No. 1D17-531

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.