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

CERTIFICATION

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

AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Thomas E. Mara, as Chief Executive Officer of The FINOVA Group Inc. (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 to my knowledge:



|(1) | the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                        |  |     |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 18, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/    Thomas E. Mara  
|                        |  |     |  | Thomas E. Mara         
|                        |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6116 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6116

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 5, 2024

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 14280 South Military Trail in Delray Beach, Florida, as the 
           ``Benjamin Berell Ferencz Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. BENJAMIN BERELL FERENCZ POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 14280 South Military Trail in Delray Beach, Florida, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Benjamin Berell Ferencz Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Benjamin 
Berell Ferencz Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 4, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6047 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6047

  To require the Postal Service to implement recommendations from the 
  Inspector General of the United States Postal Service for improving 
identification and notification of undelivered and partially delivered 
                    routes, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 25, 2023

  Ms. Craig introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Postal Service to implement recommendations from the 
  Inspector General of the United States Postal Service for improving 
identification and notification of undelivered and partially delivered 
                    routes, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. POSTAL SERVICE REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT CERTAIN RECOMMENDATIONS 
              OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.

    (a) In General.--The Postal Service shall review and, to the extent 
practicable, implement the recommendations of the Inspector General of 
the United States Postal Service with respect to undelivered and 
partially delivered routes contained in the report set forth by the 
Inspector General entitled ``Delivery Operations--Undelivered and 
Partially Delivered Routes'' (Report Number 21-262-R23) and dated 
December 16, 2022.
    (b) Deadline.--The Postal Service shall implement the 
recommendations described in subsection (a) not later than one year 
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marvin Eugene BRADLEY, a/k/a Gotti, a/k/a Gene, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6094

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 2017

Decided: June 26, 2017

Emily Deck Harrill, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Nathan S. Williams, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Marvin Eugene Bradley seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 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.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bradley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Bradley’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We *166dispense 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*
Order entered April 4, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 01383
- CV PMC CHASE, LLP AND S TEVE TURNBOW, Appellant s V. BRANCH STRUCTURAL SO LUTIONS, INC., Appelle e On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 16
- 01773
- E



### O RDER
Before the Court are appellants’ second motion for extension of time to file brief and appellee’s response in opposition

. We GRANT the extens ion motion and ORDER the brief received March 13, 2019 filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### December 28, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 134695 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 134695 COA: 277504 Muskegon CC: 02-047024-FC DWAYNE UNDREA JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 10, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s1217 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 28, 2007

Clerk
Exhibit








EXHIBIT 10.2 (vii)






AMENDMENT TO 
401(k) RESTORATION 
SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN 
On January 15, 2019, Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated (the “Company”) hereby amends the 401(k) Restoration Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan, as amended and restated January 1, 2008 (the “401(k) Restoration Plan”) by adding a new subsection (e) to article VI to read as follows: 
“Effective for Compensation paid after January 21, 2019, Employer Matching Contributions, whether calculated on a payroll period basis or an annual basis, shall cease in any amount or rate of contributions to this Plan and the Company shall not be obligated to match any deferral by any Participant, per payroll period or on an annual basis, on or after that date.”
* * * * * * * * *
#### Sidney Alexander JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer Adrian ASHFORD, In both his official and individual capacities; Trans World Entertainment Corp., d/b/a F.Y.E.; Westfield, LLC, d/b/a Wheaton Mall, Defendants-Appellees, and PO-1 Ashford, Badge No. 2695; Westfield Group, Defendants.

No. 17-1146

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 19, 2017

Decided: June 1, 2017

Sidney Alexander Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Marc Pemble Hansen, Edward B. Lattner, John Paul Markovs, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland; Ronald Greer DeWald, LIPSHULTZ & HONE CHARTERED, Silver Spring, Maryland; Brian Thomas Gallager, Michael N. Russo, Jr., COUNCIL, BARA-DEL, KOSMERL & NOLAN, PA, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sidney Alexander Jones appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, wé affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Jones v. Ashford,*No. 8:14-cv-03639-TDC, 2017 WL 221783 (D. Md. Jan. 18, 2017). 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.

*AFFIRMED*
z AQB Home 

z Public Notices 

z Site Map 

z Contact Us 

z FAQs 

 

 

Air Quality Bureau 

 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

Below are links to several of the Air Quality Bureau web pages that deal with questions that are frequently 

asked of us by the public. These pages are diverse and cover issues for those who may not know a lot about 

air quality issues, and for those who have specific questions. 

z Small Business Environmental Assistance Program FAQs - Do I need an Air Quality Permit? 

z Permitting FAQs - Frequently asked questions about permitting issues, including Permit Processing 

and Fees, Transfer of Permits, Grandfathering of Equipment, Tank-Flashing Emissions, Ethanol 

Plants, Limiting Operating Scenarios in Permits, Opacity Based Emission Calculations, and more! 

z Permitting Overview & Guidance to New Mexico NSR Air Permitting Requirements

z Air Quality Modeling FAQs - What is Dispersion Modeling? Dispersion Modeling FAQs 

z Four Corners Air Quality Group FAQs - San Juan County and surrounding areas air quality issues. 

z Planning Section FAQs - Includes FAQs for climate change, smoke management, dispersion 

modeling, and other issues. 

z Public Involvement FAQs - How does the public participate in Air Quality Regulation development? 

z Airborne Dust FAQs - Frequently asked questions about Dust 

z Fugitive Dust Control Techniques and Businesses - How to control dust from roads and construction 

sites 

 

page last updated 07/13/2010 

© 2008 New Mexico Environment Department. All Rights Reserved. 

NMED Homepage

 Search AQB Quick Links...

FAQs_common Page 1 of 1

file://H:\6PD\6PD-L\NM SIP-FIP Docket\Echo of NMED web site as of 12-21-10\FAQs_c... 1/6/2011
#### Alexander MCLAREN; et al., Appellants, v. Peter H. ARKISON; et al., Appellees.

No. 15-35849

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 14, 2017

Alexander McLaren, Pro Se

Thomas McLaren, Pro Se

Ruth Edwards, Pro Se

Peter H. Arkison, Esquire, Attorney, Pro Se

Craig E. Cammock, Esquire, Attorney, Skagit Law Group, Mount Vernon, WA, for Appellees

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Alexander McLaren appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to prosecute his appeal of a bankruptcy court order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. *Al-Torki v. Kaempen,*78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed McLaren’s appeal for failure to prosecute because McLaren had failed to file the opening brief more than 17 months after the appeal was filed. *See id.*at 1384-85 (discussing factors to be considered before dismissing a case for failure to prosecute); *Ferdik v.*Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (although dismissal is a harsh penalty, the district court’s dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a definite' and firm conviction” that it “committed a clear error of judgment” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). Contrary to McLaren’s contention, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied his untimely motion for an extension of time to file the opening brief because McLaren failed to establish extraordinary circumstances. *See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc.,*624 F.3d 1253, 1258-62 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and factors to be considered before denying an untimely motion for an extension of a deadline).

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied McLaren’s motion for reconsideration because McLaren failed to demonstrate any grounds for relief. *See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and identifying circumstances when reconsideration is appropriate).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.11


SCHEDULE OF TIER II-A CHANGE OF CONTROL AGREEMENTS


The following have executed Tier II-A Change of Control Agreements substantially in the form of the agreement filed as Exhibit 10.18 to Valero’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 (SEC File No. 1-13175).




Jason W. Fraser
R. Lane Riggs
Gary K. Simmons
Exhibit 32.1 Section 906 CEO Certification

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the filing of this report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
October 5, 2006 (the "Report") by Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc., the undersigned
hereby certifies that:

     1.   The Report  fully  complies  with  the  requirements  of section 13(a)
          or  15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934, as amended, and

     2.   The information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material  respects,  the financial condition and results of operations
          of  Pomeroy  IT  Solutions,  Inc.


          November 14, 2006             /s/ Stephen E. Pomeroy
                                        ----------------------
                                        Stephen E. Pomeroy
                                        Chief Executive Officer and President


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc. and will be retained by Pomeroy IT
Solutions, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1


                           Immtech International, Inc.

                                  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 Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on Form 10-Q of Immtech International, Inc. (the
"Company") for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eric L.
Sorkin, 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:

            1)    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
                  amended; 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/        Eric L. Sorkin
                  ------------------------------------------
                  Name:      Eric L. Sorkin
                  Title:     Chief Executive Officer
                             (Principal Executive Officer)

                  Date:      February 9, 2006
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Willis and Overton 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

RONALD RIDDICK, S/K/A 

 RONALD J. RIDDICK 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 0714-97-1 JUDGE JOSEPH E. BAKER 

 FEBRUARY 3, 1998 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF CHESAPEAKE 

Russell I. Townsend, Jr., Judge 

 Steven F. Shames (Shames & Byrum, P.C., on 

brief), for appellant. 

 Marla Graff Decker, Assistant Attorney 

General (Richard Cullen, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether the 

evidence is sufficient to sustain appellant's bench trial 

conviction for concealment of goods valued at $200 or more, in 

violation of Code § 18.2-103. We note that appellant has failed 

to comply with Rule 5A:20; however, we have examined the record 

and find that the evidence is sufficient to support the 

conviction. See Cephas v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 726, 180 S.E.2d 

345 (1971). 

 Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

The
certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Quarterly Report of First Data Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule
13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Michael D. Capellas, the Chief Executive Officer of First Data Corporation, certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



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



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of First Data Corporation.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |                           
|----------------------- |  | --------------------------
|Date: November 13, 2009 |  | /s/    Michael D. Capellas
|                        |  | Michael D. Capellas       
|                        |  | Chief Executive Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

LISETTE NICOLE MCGUIRE

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 23

- 00208

- C R

Appeal from the

394th Judicial District Court

of Brewster County, Texas

(TC# CR04751)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We

further order this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ

, C hief J ustice

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                   STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
         CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. {section} 1350

      In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September  30,  2005  (the  "Form  10-Q")  of  Grayson  Bankshares,  Inc.  (the
"Company"), we, Jacky K. Anderson, Chief Executive Officer  of the Company, and
Blake  M.  Edwards,  Chief  Financial  Officer  of the Company, hereby  certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. {section} 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to our knowledge:

      (a)   the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

      (b)   the information contained in the Form  10-Q fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and  results  of operations of
      the Company as of and for the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.



      By:  /s/ Jacky K, Anderson           Date: November 14, 2005
            Jacky K. Anderson
            Chief Executive Officer



      By:  /s/ Blake M. Edwards            Date: November 14, 2005
            Blake M. Edwards
            Chief Financial Officer