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

Certification of CEO 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 on Form 10-K of Argonaut Group, Inc. (the
Company) for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Mark E Watson III, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to the § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CERTIFIED this 10thday of March, 2006.

.



/s/ Mark E. Watson IIIMark E. Watson IIIPresident and Chief Executive Officer
#### Jerrick ATKINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Warden, Macon State Prison, Brandon Thomas, Co I- CERT, Macon State Prison, Carol Fowler, Intake, ID Supervisor, Macon State Prison, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-14039 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(February 14, 2017)

Annalise Kathleen Peters, Andrew Jacob Tuck, Alston & Bird, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Laura Louise Lones, Attorney General’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appel-lee

Before HULL, MARCUS, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In this Eighth Amendment case for an alleged painful injury, we vacate the grant of summary judgment for Defendant Thomas. Viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the evidence shows that Plaintiff’s arm could be observed to be already in a sling at the time of the occurrence underlying the claim, Plaintiff gave spoken notice to the Defendant officer about Plaintiffs recent shoulder surgery, and Defendant said expressly that he cared “nothing about” Plaintiffs shoulder before setting on Plaintiff. In the light of this evidence and the other now-assumed circumstances of this case, we conclude that a jury could find for Plaintiff on this record.

VACATED and REMANDED.
SERVE & EDUCATE, LLC, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. FAMILY DOLLAR SERVICES, INC. and Family Dollar Operations, Inc., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-0861

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 30, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
OHL BUILDING, INC., etc., Appellant, v. MURPHY CONSTRUCTION FINISHERS, INC., etc., Appellee.

No. 3D17-1716

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed July 5, 2018

Malka & Kravitz, P.A., and Ian T. Kravitz and Harry Malka (Fort Lauderdale), for appellant.

Mansfield, Bronstein & Stone, LLP, and Robert J. Mansen and Gary N. Mansfield (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee.

Before SALTER, EMAS and LOGUE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Underwater Eng'g Servs., Inc. v. Utility Bd. of City of Key West*, 194 So.3d 437, 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (holding: "In reviewing a judgment rendered after a bench trial, 'the trial court's findings *574of fact come to the appellate court with a presumption of correctness and will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous.' Thus, they are reviewed for competent, substantial evidence." (citing *Emaminejad v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC*, 156 So.3d 534, 535 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) ; *Verneret v. Foreclosure Advisors, LLC*, 45 So.3d 889, 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) ) ). *See also**Friedman v. Virginia Metal Prods. Corp.*, 56 So.2d 515, 517 (Fla. 1952) (holding: "A word or phrase in a contract is 'ambiguous' when it is of uncertain meaning and may be fairly understood in more ways than one" and, under such circumstances, "parol testimony may be received, not to vary or change the terms of the contract, but to explain, clarify or elucidate" the ambiguity).
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6089 

To prohibit States or local governments from prohibiting the connection, 

reconnection, modification, installation, or expansion of an energy service 

based on the type or source of energy to be delivered, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 26, 2023 

Mr. LANGWORTHY (for himself, Mr. FALLON, Mr. TONY GONZALES of Texas, 

Mr. LAWLER, Ms. MALLIOTAKIS, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. MOYLAN, Mr. 

NEWHOUSE, Ms. TENNEY, Mr. VALADAO, Mr. ZINKE, and Mr. HIGGINS

of Louisiana) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To prohibit States or local governments from prohibiting 

the connection, reconnection, modification, installation, 

or expansion of an energy service based on the type 

or source of energy to be delivered, 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 ‘‘Energy Choice Act’’. 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6089 IH

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON REGULATION OF ENERGY CHOICE. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—No State or local government, or 

3 instrumentality or regulatory agency thereof, may adopt 

4 a law, ordinance, building code, or efficiency standard that 

5 prohibits, or has the effect of prohibiting, the connection, 

6 reconnection, modification, installation, or expansion of an 

7 energy service based on the type or source of energy to 

8 be delivered to an end-user of such energy service. 

9 (b) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘energy’’ 

10 includes— 

11 (1) natural gas; 

12 (2) renewable gas; 

13 (3) hydrogen; 

14 (4) liquified petroleum gas; 

15 (5) renewable liquified petroleum gas; 

16 (6) other liquid petroleum products; 

17 (7) biomass-based diesel fuels; 

18 (8) other liquid petroleum products and renew19 able fuels; and 

20 (9) electricity. 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 10
                                                                      ----------


            Consent Of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We have issued our report dated June 11, 2004 accompanying the financial
statements included in the Annual Report of SBS Interactive Co. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the years ended December 31, 2003, which are incorporated by
reference into the Registration Statement on Form S-8. We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statement of SBS
Interactive Co. on Form S-8 pertaining to the Company's 2004 Equity Incentive
Plan and Form S-8 pertaining to the Non-Exclusive Consulting Agreement with
Clearsite Ltd.


/s/ Stonefield Josephson, Inc.
STONEFIELD JOSEPHSON, INC.
Santa Monica, California
June 14, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6247 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6247

To modify the scope of the Office of the Special Inspector General for 
                      Afghanistan Reconstruction.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 6, 2023

  Mr. Mills (for himself and Mr. Issa) introduced the following bill; 
which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition 
  to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To modify the scope of the Office of the Special Inspector General for 
                      Afghanistan Reconstruction.

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

SECTION 1. MODIFICATIONS TO THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL 
              FOR AFGHANISTAN RECONSTRUCTION.

    Section 1229(m)(1)(B) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 5 App.) is amended by striking 
``the reconstruction of Afghanistan'' and inserting ``assistance for 
the benefit of the Afghan people''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned,  the Chief Executive  Officer of W Holding  Company,  Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certifies that to his knowledge on the date hereof:

     (a)  the Form 10-K of the Company  for the Year Ended  December  31,  2002,
          filed on the date hereof with the 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; and

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

                                          /s/ Frank C. Stipes
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Frank C. Stipes
                                          Chief Executive Officer
                                          March 28, 2003




A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to W Holding  Company,  Inc. and will be retained by W Holding Company,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon
request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from Form 10-Q
for the quarter  ended  September 30, 1998 for Hallwood  Consolidated  Resources
Corporation and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000883953
<NAME>                        Hallwood Consolidated Resources Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         674
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  7,093
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               13,580
<PP&E>                                         325,449
<DEPRECIATION>                                 243,784
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 95,371
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          14,204
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       30
<OTHER-SE>                                     35,761
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   95,371
<SALES>                                        23,639
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               23,803
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  11,333
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               550
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,888
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (13,611)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   466
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (14,077)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (14,077)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (5.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (5.13)
        


</TABLE>
#### IN RE: Charles D. IZAC, Petitioner.

No. 16-1963

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 9, 2016

Decided: December 21, 2016

Charles D. Izac, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charles D. Izac petitions for a writ of error coram nobis and writ of mandamus seeking an order directing his immediate release from incarceration. We conclude that Izac is not entitled to coram nobis relief or mandamus relief.

To. obtain coram nobis relief, the petitioner must, show that a more usual remedy is unavailable; there is a “valid basis” for not having challenged his conviction earlier; “the consequences flowing to the petitioner from his convictions [are] sufficiently adverse to satisfy Article Ill’s case or controversy requirement;” and “the error ... must be of the most fundamental character.” Bereano v. United States, 706 F.3d 668, 576 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).

Izac’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion challenging his conviction and sentence is pending in the district court. Therefore, the relief sought by Izac is not available by way of coram nobis or mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of error coram nobis and writ of mandamus. Additionally, we deny Izac’s motions for relief from judgment, for summary disposition, and for consideration of his petition by the en banc court. 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.

PETITION DENIED
#### Momolu V.S. SIRLEAF, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eddie PEARSON, sued individually and in official capacity; Jarratt, Colonel, sued individually and in official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-6273

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 28, 2017

Decided: September 20, 2017

Momolu V.S. Sirleaf, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jessica Leigh Berdichevsky, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Ap-pellees.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Momolu V.S. Sirleaf, Jr., appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Defendants and 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. *See Sirleaf v. Pearson,*No. 3:15-cv-00301-MHL-RCY, 2017 WL 655173 (E.D. Va. Feb. 16, 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*
1 Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:12 AM

To: 'dronefilmworx@gmail.com'

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA); Schandler, Andrea (FAA) ; Cooper, Thuy (FAA); Pearson, Lakisha

(FAA) Subject: Request for Additional Information

February 11, 2015

Mr. Anthony Cullen

CEO Drone Filmworx Company 3401 Grande Vista Drive, Suite 56 Newbury Park, CA 91319

Dear Mr. Cullen:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2014-0931). This information is necessary for the Fe deral Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Describe the aircraft make and model for the prop osed UAS operation. The description should include the following: size and aircraft type (i.e. - fixed-wing, rotorcraft, lighter-than-air). Please submit the

aircraft manual.

 Provide information regarding the radio frequency sp ectrum. This information can be located in the

aircraft manual.

 Your petition references a pre-flight inspection and/or checklist. Desc ribe the process used to determine if the UAS is airworthy and in sa fe condition for operation in the NAS.

 Describe the process used to document UAS discrepanc ies and the corrective acti on taken in the aircraft record. Examples of processes incl ude (1) the petitioner has elected to use its own process to maintain its UAS and ensure that only airworthy and safe UAS will be allowed to operate in the NAS and (2) the petitioner has elected to maintain its UAS in accordance with the manufacturer maintenance and inspection recommendations.

 Your petition references the materials listed below, however the materials were not submitted for the record. Please provide a copy of the following referenced materials:

o Flight Operations Manual

o Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Hea dquarters or electronically via e-mail to2 333exemptions@faa.gov . If you want us to process your request a ny further, we must receive the information described above by February 26, 2015. If we do not rece ive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Nia Daniels Program Analyst

Nia Daniels, ARM

‐ 108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075 nia.daniels@faa.gov
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-21-00412-CR

__________________

TREVEON SHELLDRICK POOLE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 435th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 20-02-01852-CR

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A grand jury indicted Appellant Treveon Shelldrick Poole (“Appellant” or 

“Poole”) for aggravated robbery, and the indictment also alleged that during the 

commission of the offense or immediate flight therefrom Poole used or exhibited a 

deadly weapon, namely a firearm. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03(a)(2). Poole

pleaded “not guilty,” but the jury found Poole guilty as charged in the indictment. 

After hearing evidence at the punishment phase of the trial, the jury assessed 

punishment at fifty years of confinement. Poole filed a notice of appeal.
2

On appeal, Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief stating that he 

has reviewed the case and, based on his professional evaluation of the record and 

applicable law, there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We 

granted an extension of time for Poole to file a pro se brief, and we received no 

response from Poole.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination 

of the record of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly 

frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). 

We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, and we have found nothing 

that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-

28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the 

opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for 

reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”) Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order 

appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 

503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

1 Poole may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for 

discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3

AFFIRMED.

_________________________

 LEANNE JOHNSON

Justice

Submitted on August 23, 2022

Opinion Delivered August 24, 2022

Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
Arthur N. LANDERS and Banner Supply Co., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Gwendolyn LANDERS, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1047

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

DECEMBER 14, 2017

ORDERED that appellants' notice of voluntary dismissal is recognized by the Court, and this appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida is hereby dismissed.
Torrance Kenneth ROGERS, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 3D18-0213

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed June 27, 2018.

Torrance Kenneth Rogers, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Before SUAREZ, LAGOA and LUCK, JJ.

SUAREZ, J.

Torrance Rogers petitions this Court for a writ of prohibition seeking to dismiss a petition, filed below, for civil commitment of a sexually violent predator (a "Ryce Act" petition). Rogers claims the trial court violated his rights under section 394.916, Florida Statutes (2017), when it did not commence a jury trial within thirty days of his request in open court. Because Rogers has an adequate remedy below, we dismiss his petition for writ of prohibition as premature. *See**Osborne v. State*, 907 So.2d 505, 507 (Fla. 2005) ("[Defendant] moved to dismiss the Ryce Act petition against him on the basis that the State failed to bring the case to trial within the thirty days of the trial court's probable cause finding, as required by section 394.916(1), Florida Statutes (1999)."); *State v. Goode*, 830 So.2d 817, 819 (Fla. 2002) ("[W]hile [Defendant] was still being detained without trial, defense counsel filed two additional motions to dismiss the proceedings, and ... a hearing on [Defendant's] motions to dismiss was held before ... the assigned judge. At the conclusion of the hearing, [the judge] dismissed the proceedings on a violation of the statutory provision requiring a final hearing to commence within thirty days of the ex parte finding of probable cause.").

Dismissed.
EXHIBIT 23.1**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No.333-127579, No. 333-52730 and No. 333-54880) of Resources Connection, Inc. of our reports datedJuly 25, 2007 relating to the consolidated financial statements, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appear in this Form 10-K. We alsoconsent to the reference to us under the heading “Selected Financial Data” in this Form 10-K./s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPOrange County, California