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 annual report of INCA Designs, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Stacy Josloff, Chief Executive Officer and 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:



| | (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/ Stacy Josloff                               
|Stacy Josloff                                   
|Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer
|November 1, 2010                                

A signed original of this
certification 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.
Sunaina GLAIZE, Appellant, v. Samuel Greer GLAIZE, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2098

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 20, 2018 Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied April 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### Jimmy Lawrence NANCE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Linda THOMAS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-7738

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: April 28, 2017

Jimmy Lawrence Nance, Appellant Pro Se.

Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee,

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jimmy Lawrence Nance, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order *275accepting the recommendation of ■ the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Nance v. Thomas,*No. 2:15-cv-05099-BHH, 2016 WL 7155449 (D.S.C. Dec. 8, 2016). Nance’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 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*
Darren MCCRARY v. CENTRAL PLANT TECHNOLOGY, INC.

1151331

Supreme Court of Alabama.

February 10, 2017

Affirmed.
Deano S. ESPOSITA, Appellant, v. WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, et al., Appellees.

Case No. 5D15-2542

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

January 2, 2018 Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied February 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Jerimiah Joseph Abraham LOVETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-4032

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 1, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Anthony Cornelius JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2940

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 23, 2018

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Anthony Cornelius Jackson, pro se, Appellant.

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

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

B.L. Thomas, C.J., and Bilbrey and Jay, JJ., concur.
ACCEPTED 12-14-00127-CR TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS 1/2/2015 1:02:11 PM CATHY LUSK CLERK
Linda JACKSON v. BIRMINGHAM AIRPORT AUTHORITY

2160568

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

In connectionwith the Annual Report of Capital Corp of the West (“the Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending March 31, 2003 As filed with Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (“the Report”), I, Thomas T. Hawker , ChiefExecutive 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)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toCapital Corp of the West and will be retained by Capital Corp of the West andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| May 9, 2003 |                     |
|-------------|--------------------------|
|        |                     |
|        | /s/ Thomas  T. Hawker    |   |
|        | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
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.                  

###### General Services Administration

          - 48 CFR Part 511
          - [GSAR Case 2016-G511; Docket No. 2021-0018; Sequence No. 1]
          - RIN 3090-AJ84

# AGENCY:

Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).

# ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

# SUMMARY:

On February 9, 2022, GSA published a final rule to amend the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to streamline and update requirements for contracts that involve GSA information systems and replace outdated text with existing policies of the GSA Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) and provide centralized guidance to ensure consistent application across the organization. GSA is making editorial changes to an amendatory instruction under Part 511.

# DATES:

Effective March 11, 2022.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Ms. Johnnie McDowell, Procurement Analyst, at 202-718-6112 or                         *gsarpolicy@gsa.gov,*                         for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat Division at 202-501-4755 or                         *gsaregsec@gsa.gov.*                         Please cite GSAR Case 2016-G511.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In FR Doc. 2022-02662 appearing on pages 7393-7395 in the issue of February 9, 2022, make the following correction:

## 511.171 [Corrected]

On page 7395, in the second column, Instruction 4 is corrected to read:

4. Amend part 511 by adding Subpart 511.1—Selecting and Developing Requirements Documents, consisting of section 511.171 to read as follows:

Jeffrey A. Koses,

Senior Procurement Executive, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy, General Services Administration.

[FR Doc. 2022-03411 Filed 2-16-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820-61-P
A.L. v. D.L. and T.L.

2160169

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                        985,000 
<SECURITIES>                                        0 
<RECEIVABLES>                              27,717,000 
<ALLOWANCES>                                3,595,000 
<INVENTORY>                                 2,219,000 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           36,119,000       
<PP&E>                                     10,044,000      
<DEPRECIATION>                              5,447,000    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             57,720,000      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      10,942,000    
<BONDS>                                             0  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                         0 
<COMMON>                                      106,000 
<OTHER-SE>                                 41,587,000       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               57,720,000         
<SALES>                                    19,924,000          
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           19,924,000          
<CGS>                                      14,867,000          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              18,325,000          
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               12,000       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              432,000      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            226,000       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             1,587,000       
<INCOME-TAX>                                  665,000      
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0      
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0      
<CHANGES>                                           0  
<NET-INCOME>                                  922,000 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.09 
        

</TABLE>
454 A.2d 152

#### Commonwealth v. Eubanks, Appellant.

Submitted September 21, 1982.

John M. Glace, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant; William A. Behe, Deputy District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before WIEAND, CIRILLO and POPOVICH, JJ.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
N OTE : This o rder is non precedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
DAVID HOVER, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee.

______________________

2014

- 5022

______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:13

- cv

- 00895

- MMS, Judge Margaret M. Sweeney.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

David Hover moves for an extension of time to file his reply brief.

Upon consideration thereof,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : The motion is granted. Hover's brief is due within 14 days of the date of this order. Case: 14-5022 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 03/13/2014HOVER v. US 2

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court

s27 Case: 14-5022 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 03/13/2014
EXHIBIT 32.2 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, Jane Morlok, Chief Financial Officer of Breda
Telephone Corp., certify that to my knowledge (i) Breda Telephone Corp.s
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Breda Telephone Corp. Date: March
 31, 2009/s/ Jane MorlokJane Morlok,
 Chief Financial Officer E-16
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lamondes WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7289

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 2017

Decided: April 27, 2017

Lamondes Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Paul E. Budlow, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Paul Michael Cunningham, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lamondes Williams seeks to appeal from the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The court’s denial of relief is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). *255When 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 Williams 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 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
El-Asad J. ALSAEDI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4061

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 7, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7093

DENISE HARGROVE, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. LAURA OVERSTREET, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:07-hc-02140-D)

Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 17, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Denise Hargrove, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Denise Hargrove seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Hargrove 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 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
B.M. v. S.P.

2160193

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 2, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
-88 -86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

34 36 38 40 42



### ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 06/22 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 22 Jun 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.92 N 77.01 WMeters AGL
#### PACIFIC WEST SECURITIES, INC.; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. JOANNA GEORGE; Randy George, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 14-15628

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 16, 2016 *

Filed November 22, 2016

Dennis J. Kelly, I, Dillingham *&*Murphy, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees:

Joanna George, Pro Se, Randy George, Pro Se, Sonoma, CA, for Defendants-Appellants.

Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Joanna George and Randy George appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment denying their motion to vacate an arbitration award entered against them and granting plaintiffs’ motion to confirm the arbitration-award. We review de novo the district court’s decision to-confirm an arbitration award and deny a motion to vacate the award. Woods *v. Saturn Distrib. Corp.,*78 F.3d 424, 427 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.

The district court properly denied Georges’s motion to vacate the arbitration award. First, Georges failed to show evident partiality on account of either nondisclosure or actual bias as to one of the arbitrators. *See*9 U.S.C § 10(a)(2) (providing basis for vacatur due to evident partiality of arbitrators); *Lagstein v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London,*607 F.3d 634, 645-46 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining bases for showing evident partiality); *Woods,*78 F.3d at 427 (the “party alleging evident *955partiality [in actual bias cases] must establish specific facts which indicate improper motives” (alteration in original; citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); *see also New Regency Prods., Inc. v. Nippon Herald Films, Inc.,*501 F.3d 1101, 1110 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[C]ourts have rejected claims of evident partiality based on long past, attenuated, or insubstantial connections between a party and an arbitrator.” (internal citation omitted)).

Second, Georges failed to show the arbitrators were “guilty” of prejudicial misconduct or misbehavior. 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(3) (providing basis for vacatur due to arbitrator misconduct or misbehavior); *see U.S. Life Ins. v. Superior Nat. Ins. Co.,*591 F.3d 1167, 1175 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that “[arbitrators enjoy wide discretion to require the exchange of evidence, and to admit or exclude evidence, how and when they see fit” and that the movant for vaca-tur had a fundamentally fair hearing where “[i]t had notice, it had the opportunity to be heard and to present relevant and material evidence, and the decision-makers were not infected with bias” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Tyrone RAGLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. LEE, Correctional Officer; J.N. Dillman, Warden; Charlene Davis, Asst. for Wendy Hobbs Regional Administrator, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-7688

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: April 28, 2017

*271Tyrone Ragland, Appellant Pro Se.

Jessica Leigh Berdichevsky, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Ap-pellees.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tyrone Ragland 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, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Ragland v. Lee,*No. 1:15-cv-01663-LMB-TCB, 2016 WL 6542844 (E.D. Va. Nov. 3, 2016). 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*
<PAGE>
Deloitte & Touche LLP
BCE Place
181 Bay Street, Suite 1400
Toronto, ON M5J 2V1
Canada

Tel: (416) 601 6150
Fax: (416) 601 6151
www.deloitte.ca


                                                        (DELOITTE & TOUCHE-LOGO)


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the use of our report dated February 4, 2003, appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 40-F of Brookfield Properties Corporation for the year
ended December 31, 2002.




(DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP SIGNATURE)

Toronto, Ontario
March 24, 2003










--------
DELOITTE
TOUCHE
TOHMATSU
--------

<PAGE>

Deloitte & Touche LLP
BCE Place
181 Bay Street, Suite 1400
Toronto, ON M5J 2V1
Canada

Tel: (416) 601 6150
Fax: (416) 601 6151
www.deloitte.ca


                                                        (DELOITTE & TOUCHE-LOGO)


COMMENTS BY AUDITORS ON CANADA-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

REPORTING DIFFERENCE

In the United States, reporting standards for auditors require the addition of
an explanatory paragraph (following the opinion paragraph) when there are
changes in accounting principles that have a material effect on the
comparability of the Company's financial statements, such as the changes
described in Note 1 to the financial statements of Brookfield Properties
Corporation. Our report to the shareholders dated February 4,2003 is expressed
in accordance with Canadian reporting standards, which do not require a
reference to such changes in accounting principles in the auditors' report when
the changes are properly accounted for and adequately disclosed in the financial
statements.




(DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP SIGNATURE)

Chartered Accountants
Toronto, Ontario
March 24,2003










--------
DELOITTE
TOUCHE
TOHMATSU
--------