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

**CERTIFICATIONOF PERIODIC REPORT**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, the undersigned,Richard N. Snyder, Chief Executive Officer of Forgent Networks, Inc. (the “Company”),do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.                                       Thequarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended April 30,2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended, and

2.                                       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|   |                    |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | /s/ RICHARD N. SNYDER   |   |
|   | Richard N. Snyder       |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   | June 14, 2007           |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Forgent Networks, Inc. and will be retainedby Forgent Networks, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as aseparate disclosure document.

----
EX PARTE Anthony MORRIS

(In re: Anthony Morris v. Escambia County Board of Education and John Knott, in his capacity as Superintendent of Education for the Escambia County Board of Education)

2160683

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
#### Richard POLIDI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHESHIRE PARKER SCHNEIDER & BRYAN, PLLC; Alan Schneider; John Does 1-3, Defendants-Appellees. Richard Polidi, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carmen Hoyme Bannon, in each of her official and individual capacities; Douglas Bell, Defendants-Appellees, and The North Carolina State Bar, an Agency of the State of North Carolina; Wayne Truax, in each of his official and individual capacities; Katherine Jean, in each of her official and individual capacities; John Does 1-10; John Does 1-5, Defendants.

No. 17-1122, No. 17-1124

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 26, 2017

Decided: September 28, 2017

Richard Polidi, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Richard Polidi appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 (2012) complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012) and denying his Motion to Set Aside Order and for a *256New Hearing.* We have reviewed the records and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Polidi v. Cheshire Parker Schneider & Bryan, PLLC,*No. 1:16-cv-01534-TSE-MSN (E.D. Va. Dec. 22, 2016; Jan. 25, 2017); *Polidi v. Bannon,*No. 1:16-cv-01535-TSE-MSN (E.D. Va. Dec. 28, 2016; filed Dec. 29, 2016 & entered Dec. 30, 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*

*

 The district court declined to exercise jurisdiction over Polidi’s state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (2012).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Richard Moises QUIJIJE-CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40053 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 24, 2017

Ernest Gonzalez, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Richard Moisés Quijije-Chavez, Pro Se

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Richard Moisés Quijije-Chavez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Quijije-Chavez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,.and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47-5, the court has determined that this opinion should, not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          29,148
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             350
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                16,880
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    145,646
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          31,875
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            31,144
<LOANS>                                        368,501
<ALLOWANCE>                                      6,925
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 627,547
<DEPOSITS>                                     547,978
<SHORT-TERM>                                    24,100
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,411
<LONG-TERM>                                      3,182
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        35,742
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,134
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 627,547
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 17,721
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                5,557
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   316
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                23,594
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               8,553
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,345
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           14,249
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,531
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 10,798
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,711
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,314
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,314
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.71
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.43
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,578
<LOANS-PAST>                                        27
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 6,542
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,351
<RECOVERIES>                                       203
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                6,925
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             6,925
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### Thelma Geraldine WALDROP, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 23090.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 13, 1966.

Thomas M. Haas, Mobile, Ala., for appellant.

D. Broward Segrest, Asst. U. S. Atty., Mobile, Ala., for appellee.

*811Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and THORNBERRY and GOLDBERG, District Judges.

PER CURIAM:

There was more than ample evidence to warrant submission to the jury the question whether appellant was guilty as an aider and abettor of the bank robbery for which she was convicted. There being no substantial legal questions raised on the appeal, the judgment is

Affirmed.
Patrick CIMAGLIA, et al., Appellants, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, etc., Appellee.

No. 3D17-976

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 16, 2018

Pomeranz & Associates, P.A., and Mark L. Pomeranz (Hallandale), for appellants.

The Lamchick Law Group, P.A., and Ryan B. Lamchick and Alex A. Wagner, for appellee.

Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and LAGOA and LOGUE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
James Joseph BELCHER, III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1920

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 1, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

AUG 20 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ANTHONY F. AVALLONE,

Appellant,

v.

ANNE DILLON GRAHAM,

Appellee.

No. 96-2208

(D.C. No. CIV-93-1580-JC)

(D. N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before ANDERSON, LOGAN, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-

Anthony F. Avallone appeals from a district court order affirming the

bankruptcy court’s imposition of sanctions against him. Our jurisdiction arises

from 28 U.S.C. § 1291, see Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249,

253 (1992). The standard of review generally applicable to a bankruptcy court’s

sanctions order is abuse of discretion, see Udall v. FDIC (In re Nursery Land

Dev., Inc.), 91 F.3d 1414, 1415 (10th Cir. 1996). 

Mr. Avallone, as counsel for debtor Curtis C. Graham, filed a complaint in

bankruptcy court to determine the dischargeability of alimony provisions. The

bankruptcy court held that the state court had concurrent jurisdiction over the

dischargeability issue, and the state court subsequently ruled that the alimony

provisions were not dischargeable. The bankruptcy court, on motion by defendant

and counterclaimant Anne Dillon Graham, ruled that the state order was res

judicata on the dischargeability issue. The bankruptcy court ruled for defendant

on her counterclaim for sanctions, imposing sanctions against Mr. Avallone in the

amount of $3,150.00. 

Mr. Avallone appealed to the district court, and Ms. Graham filed a crossappeal. The magistrate judge issued his proposed findings and recommendation

to reject both parties’ arguments and affirm the bankruptcy court order in toto. 

After objections, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and 

recommendation as an order of the court. Mr. Avallone now appeals to this court,
-3-

challenging the bankruptcy court’s award of sanctions and contending that he was

denied the required notice regarding the imposition of sanctions. 

After careful review of the record on appeal, together with the parties’

briefs and appendices, we conclude that the district court correctly decided that

the bankruptcy court’s sanctions order should be affirmed. Therefore, for

substantially the same reasons as contained in the findings and recommendation

of the magistrate judge, dated July 3, 1996, adopted by the district court in its

order dated August 2, 1996, the judgment of the United States District Court for

the District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTIONS

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-14-00361-CR

Style: Blake Anthony Monakino v. The State of Texas

Date motions filed*: June 14 and 15, 2016

Type of motions: Letter-Motions to Remand and to Withdraw Appellate Attorney

Party filing motions: Pro Se Appellant

Document to be filed: N/A

Is appeal accelerated? No.

Ordered that motions are:

 Granted

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

Because appellant is represented by counsel, his pro se letter-motions to remand to the 

trial court for time served, filed on June 14, 2016, and to withdraw his appellate 

attorney, filed on June 15, 2016, are DISMISSED as moot. See Scheanette v. State,

144 S.W.3d 503, 505 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (no entitlement to hybrid 

representation). Appellant is directed to communicate directly with his counsel, 

Melissa Martin.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

  Acting individually 

Date: June 28, 2016
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6061

C. JOSEPH MOSBEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JOSH STEIN; THE CORPORATE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:20-cv-01002-TDS-JLW)

Submitted: March 23, 2021 Decided: March 29, 2021

Before THACKER, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

C. Joseph Mosbey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

C. Joseph Mosbey seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and construing Mosbey’s pleading as a 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 petition and dismissing it as successive and unauthorized. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When, as here,

the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both 

that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 

(2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Mosbey’s informal briefs, 

we conclude that Mosbey has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see 

also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an 

important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved 

in that brief.”). 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
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Moris Aragon DUENAS, also known as Moris Aragon Duenes, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11457 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 18, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Moris Aragon Dueñas, Pro Se

Before PRADO, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Moris Aragon Dueñas has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Ara-gon Dueñas has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *364the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 By:
    
    /s/ Mark R. Newburg
    
    
    
    Dated: May 15, 2007Mark R. NewburgTitle:
    
    President, Chief Executive
Officer and
 Treasurer
(Principal Executive Officer)By:
    
    /s/ Arnaldo F. Galassi
    
    
    
    Dated: May 15, 2007Arnaldo F. GalassiTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer and
Secretary
 (Principal Financial
Officer)
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In  connection  with the Annual  Report of Natural Gas Services  Group,
Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended  December 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),  I, Stephen C.
Taylor,  President and Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  hereby certify
pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.       The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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/ Stephen C. Taylor
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Stephen C. Taylor
                                                     Chief Executive Officer


                                                     July 6, 2005
Tyler Len REYNOLDS v. STATE

CR-16-0147

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 30, 2017

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 33 (Thursday, February 17, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 9044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03421]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14803-001; Project No. 2082-063]


PacifiCorp; Klamath River Renewal Corporation; Notice of 
Teleconference for Tribal Consultation Meeting

    a. Project Name and Numbers: Lower Klamath and Klamath 
Hydroelectric Project Nos. 14803 and 2082.
    b. Project Licensee: PacifiCorp.
    c. Date and Time of Teleconference: Tuesday, March 1, 2022, from 
12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
    d. FERC Contact: Jennifer Polardino, (202) 502-6437 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2349464d4d4a4546510d534c4f4251474a4d4c63454651400d444c55"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c3a9a6adadaaa5a6b1edb3acafa2b1a7aaadac83a5a6b1a0eda4acb5">[email protected]</span></a>.
    e. Purpose of Meeting: Commission staff will participate in a 
teleconference with the Shasta Indian Nation and the California State 
Historic Preservation Office (California SHPO) to discuss the 
application for the surrender of license and removal of project works 
for the Lower Klamath Project No. 14803. The project is located on the 
Klamath River in Klamath County, Oregon, and Siskiyou County, 
California. The project occupies federal lands managed by the U.S. 
Bureau of Land Management.
    f. Members of the public and intervenors in the referenced 
proceedings may attend the teleconference; however, participation will 
be limited to Tribal representatives of the Shasta Indian Nation, 
representatives from the California SHPO, and the Commission's 
representatives. If during the call the Shasta Indian Nation decides to 
disclose information about a specific location which could create a 
risk or harm to an archaeological site or Native American cultural 
resource, the public will be excused for that portion of the meeting 
and can return to the call after such information is disclosed. The 
teleconference meeting will be transcribed by a court reporter and the 
transcript will be placed in the public record.
    g. Please call or email Jennifer Polardino at (202) 502-6437 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7319161d1d1a1516015d031c1f1201171a1d1c33151601105d141c05"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bfd5dad1d1d6d9dacd91cfd0d3decddbd6d1d0ffd9dacddc91d8d0c9">[email protected]</span></a> by Monday, February 28, 2022, to RSVP and 
to receive the teleconference call-in information.

    Dated: February 11, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-03421 Filed 2-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EX PARTE Harrinda SMITH and Marion Street

1160134 (2150760)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

3-17-2017

Cert. denied.
SHADOW RIDGE PROPERTIES, LLC, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. NATIONAL RESIDENTIAL ASSETS CORP., et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3154

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 27, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
SCWC

- 13

- 0005233

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI  I

________________________________________________________________

STATE OF HAWAI  I, Respondent/Plaintiff

- Appellee,

vs.

DAT MINH TRAN, Petitioner/Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP

- 13

- 0005233; CR. NO. 95

- 0

- 002471)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/ Defendant

- Appellant Dat Minh Tran ’s

application for writ of certiorari filed on November 9 , 2016, is

hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai  i , December 20 , 2016.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-13-0005233

20-DEC-2016

10:33 AM