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

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of VendingData Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),we, Mark R. Newburg, Executive Director of the Company, and Douglas H. Caszatt,Acting Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Controller of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 

 
| By:    | /s/ Mark R. Newburg                                                                                                     | Dated: | May 16, 2005 |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------|
|   | Mark R. Newburg                                                                                                         |   |         |
| Title: | Executive  Director and Acting Chief  Financial Officer (Principal Executive Officer  and Principal Accounting Officer) |   |         |
|   |                                                                                                                    |   |         |
| By:    | /s/ Douglas H. Caszatt                                                                                                  | Dated: | May 16, 2005 |
|   | Douglas H.  Caszatt                                                                                                     |   |         |
| Title: | Acting Chief Financial  Officer, Secretary and  Controller (Principal Accounting Officer)                               |   |         |

 

 

Thiscertification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any otherpurpose.

 

----
#### Holeman *vs.*Maupin.

October 23.

Error to the Madison Circuit; George Shannon, Judge,

*Vendor and*Vendee, *Rescission of Contracts.*

filANCTBT.

*Case*124.

Whore the the convey03 since from andéfecVof other, he cannot after wards enjoin the vendor from collecting the purphase money for *381title, but must Jo,)k to the ^antor-

*380Judge Owsley

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

After having accepted from the, Bavnscs a deed fpi»'the land, though it may never bav.e been proved aric* recorded, Maupin can have no equity to enjoin the collection of the money, which, by his contract with lloleman, for the purchase, he stipulated to pay, but to remedy any defects in his title, be should have recourse' to the Barnses. It was, therefore? erroneous to decree a perpetuation of the injunction which had been granted Maupin, against the judg-. ffioiit at law recovered by Holemap, for part of the *381purchase money, and consequently, the decree must be reversed vvith cost, the cause remanded to the court below, and the bill of Maupin dismissed, with *cost*and damages.

*Mayes*and *Caperton*for plaintiff) *Turner*for defondant. . ,
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Adrian GOMEZ-UREABA, also known as Gerardo Gomez-Uribe, also known as Angel Uribe, Defendant-Appellant United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Silvano Garcia-Ibarra, Defendant-Appellant

No. 15-10670 Cons. w/ No. 15-10870 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 18, 2017

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

James Matthew Wright, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Amarillo, TX, Gabriel Reyes, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public *272Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, Carly Elizabeth Barton, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, Jerry Van Beard, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and CLEMENT and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Adrian Gomez-Ureaba pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the United States and received a within-guidelines sentence of 34 months in prison and a one-year term of supervised release. Silvano Garcia-Ibarra likewise pleaded guilty to illegal reentry, and he received a within-guidelines sentence of 18 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised release. Each appellant was sentenced in accordance with a determination that his prior Texas conviction for evading arrest with a motor vehicle amounted to an aggravated felony under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C) (2014), which incorporates the definition of crime of violence found in 18 U.S.C. § 16(b).

First, the appellants argue that, in light of *Johnson v. United States,*- U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), § 16(b) is facially unconstitutional. As they concede, this argument is foreclosed. *See United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria,*831 F.3d 670, 677 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), *petition for cert. filed*(Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16-6259). Their argument that § 16(b) is unconstitutional as applied to them likewise fails, as the standard of § 16(b) can be straightforwardly applied to their prior convictions. *See*Gonzalez-Long*oria,*831 F.3d at 677-78; *see also United States v. Sanchez-Ledezma,*630 F.3d 447, 450-51 (5th Cir. 2011).

Finally, their argument that *Johnson*casts doubt upon *Sanchez-Ledezma*is unpersuasive. Because the former case is not squarely on point with the latter, we will not revisit the latter. *See United States v. Traxler,*764 F.3d 486, 489 (5th Cir. 2014); *United States v. Alcantar,*733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013).

AFFIRMED.

*

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.
#### Fidel H. PAJARILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-17155

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 16, 2016 *

Filed November 22, 2016

Fidel H. Pajarillo, Pro Se, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Christopher Jorgensen, Daniel F. Pol-senberg, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.

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 **

Fidel H. Pajarillo appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging, among other claims, wrongful foreclosure. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and may affirm on any ground supported by the record. *Thompson v. Paul,*547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Dismissal of Pajarillo’s action was proper because Pajarillo failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was not in default on his loan. *See In re Mortg. Elec.*
      *954
      *Registration Sys., Inc.,*754 F.3d 772, 785 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Nevada law requires- that a trustor or mortgagor show a lack of default in order to proceed with a wrongful foreclosure claim,”).

Contrary to Pajarillo’s contentions, the district court correctly determined that Pajarillo’s note and deed of trust were reunified by the August 2011 assignment of the deed of trust and note. *See Edelstein v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon,*286 P.3d 249, 258 (Nev. 2012) (“MERS, as agent for [the original lender] and its successors and assigns, had authority to transfer the note on behalf of [the original lender] and its successors and assigns.”).

Appellees’ request for judicial notice, filed on June 6, 2014, is denied.

Pajarillo’s motion to remand, filed on October 27,2015, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**Exhibit 23.01** **CONSENT    OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration    Statements on    Form S-8    (nos.    333-123299,333-132398,333-72192,333-58510,333-55828,333-54886,333-48582,333-46252,333-84545,333-89170,333-89172    and    333-113662)    and on    Form S-3    (Nos.    333-107963,333-72746,333-61410    and    333-80419)    of Move, Inc. of our report dated March 1, 2007, with    respect to the consolidated financial statements and financial    statement schedule of Move, Inc., Move, Inc. management’s    assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over    financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control    over financial reporting of Move, Inc. included in this Annual    Report on    Form 10-K    for the year ended December 31, 2006. /s/  ERNST    & YOUNG LLP     Los Angeles, California
StarBamier Si2121 SW 19"' Avenue Road . Ocala, Florida 34471 , 

352.867.4020 " ' ••• - ' -' ^ 

Allen Parson s August 27, 2010 

Publishe r 

Aloha l,e\' 

Associate Director 

Small Community Air Ser\ice Development Program (SCASDP) 

Dear Ms. Ley, 

The Ocala Star-Banner fully supports the Gainesville-.\lachua Counr\" Regional Airport Authority's request for 

a Small CommunJh' Air Service De\'elDpment grant to help support the new American Eagle Airlines ser\'icc 

bel^veen Gainesville and Miami and the existing local air carriers, Delta Air Lines and US Airways. The StarBanner recognizes the importance of air ser\'ice to ect>nomic development and the quality' of life for resident? 

and visitors in our region. 

VX'e want to help ensure the success of the new American Airlines service between Gainesville and the Miami 

hub. W'e are already working closely with the Airport AuthoriU' and are committed to matching funds spent. 

The lack of air service to South Florida and adequate connecting service to international destinations has forced 

many to commute to and from other airports or make the exhausting 4+ hour trip to Miami by auto. 

Additionally, American's extensive domestic and international route structure from Miami will provide new 

travel options and a greater level of frequency. 

Due to the critical importance of qualiU' air service for our region, the Star-Banner is willing to match funds 

spent with our organization to help American AirLnes establish its new route between GNV and MIA. With 

nearly 200,000 daily readers in print and online, we believe our donation for advertising will help make the new 

service successful. 

I urge you to proceed with approving the Airport Authorit\''s request for a grant to assist with marketing efforts 

for the next two years. It 1 can offer additional insights, please don't hesitate to contact me 

K n n or 

The New YorfcTimes 

Company
#### Jacob P. Marshall et al., Respondents, *v.*The New York Central Railroad Company, Appellant.

(Submitted September 19, 1871;

decided January term, 1872.)

*A. P. Zoning*for the appellant.

*E. G. Za/pham*for the respondents.

Hunt, 0., reads for affirmance.

All concur. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
14389

#### FARLEY v. AMERICAN SURETY CO. OF NEW YORK *ET AL.*

(188 S. E., 776)

*204
      *Messrs. Grier, Park, McDonald & Todd,*for appellant,

*205
      *Messrs. Mays & Feather stone, B. W. Crouch, Jeff D. Griffith*and *M. J. Yarbrough,*for respondent,

December 1, 1936.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Stabler.

This appeal is from an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint. The action was commenced in June, 1933. In so far as the appellant, American Surety Company of New York, is concerned, the suit is upon a fiduciary bond issued by it in November, 1912,- and in which Milledge T. Pitts, formerly president of Planters National Bank of Saluda, and who died in December, 1930, was the principal. The bond, which is set out as an exhibit to the complaint, contained the usual coverage found in bonds of this kind, and was continuous in its operation, being renewed, from year to year merely by the payment of yearly premiums.

*206We have given careful consideration to the questions-raised by the exceptions; and, while we are not in agreement with all that is said in the Circuit Order, we think, under the facts alleged in the complaint and admitted by the demurrer to be true, Judge Sease reached the correct conclusion. We therefore approve the result of his decree. See *Peurifoy, Receiver, v. Loyal et al.,*154 S. C., 267, 151 S. E., 579; *Garner v. Volunteer State Life Insurance Company,*171 S. C., 1, 171 S. E., 370; *Lee v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,*180 S. C., 475, 186 S. E., 376.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Bonham, Baker and Fisi-iburne and Mr. Acting Associate Justice A. E. Gaston concur.
#### In the Matter of Ruby P. Davis, Respondent, against Patrick Walsh, Fire Commissioner of the City of New York, et al., Comprising the Board of Trustees of the City of New York Fire Department Pension Fund, Defendants, and Mary Hergenrother, Intervener, Appellant.

Submitted February 23, 1943;

decided March 4, 1943.

*Adelbert W. Bailey*for motion to dismiss appeal and in opposition to cross-motion.

*Leonard Lazarus*in opposition to motion to dismiss appeal and for cross-motion.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied.

Motion for certificate that a constitutional question is directly involved on the appeal granted, and it is so ordered.
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 15 - 00376 - CR EX PARTE SAMUEL ALEMAN PINEDA , APPELLANT On Appeal from the 140th District Court Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No. 2008 - 418,759, Honorable Jim Bob Darnell, Presiding



### October 27 , 2015 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Appellant Samuel Aleman Pineda appeals a trial court order denying his motion for appointment of counsel for purposes of post - conviction litigation. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Appellant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault in 2006. In 2 015, Appellant filed a motion in the trial court to appoint counsel to represent him in filing an application for writ of habeas corpus under art. 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial court denied t he motion , and a ppellant appeal ed the order. E xclusive jurisdiction over post - conviction relief from final felony convictions vests in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See P adieu v. Court of Appeals of TX .,2

Fifth Dist ., 392 S.W.3d 115, 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) ; see also T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art . 11.07, § 5. Consequently, intermediate “appellate courts ha ve scrupulously declined to intervene in pending a rt. 11.07 actions, noting [the Te xas Court of Criminal Appeals’] exclusive jurisdiction.” Padieu , 392 S.W.3d at 117 ( citing In re McAfee , 53 S.W.3d 715 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceed ing) ). Article 11.07 simply contains no role for the intermediate courts of app eals; the only courts to which a rt . 11.07 refers are the convicting court and the Court of Criminal Appeals. In re McAfee , 53 S.W.3d at 718. Moreover, a decision to deny appointed counsel is not an appealable order given that it involves a preliminary matter. Gutierrez v. State , 307 S.W.3d 318, 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (involving the denial of counsel to assist in securing post - conviction DNA testing). This coupled wit h our lack of jurisdiction over art. 11.07 proceedings leads us to conclude that we have no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal at bar. Accordingly, w e dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Per Curia m Do not publish
#### Charles H. Coley, Respondent, *v.*Frank L. Cohen, Appellant.

Submitted April 5, 1943;

decided April 15, 1943.

Motion for reargument denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 289 N. Y. 365.)
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-1259

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Bradley Charles Widener

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Dubuque

____________

Submitted: May 29, 2018

Filed: June 1, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

BradleyCharles Widener appeals the sentence the district court imposed after 1

revoking his supervised release. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this

court affirms.

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern 1

District of Iowa.
Counsel has filed a brief arguing that the revocation sentence is substantively

unreasonable, and has moved to withdraw. Widener has filed a brief challenging both

his sentence and a special condition of supervised release requiring him to

temporarily reside at a residential reentry center (RRC) upon his release. 

This court concludes that the revocation sentence is not substantively

unreasonable, see United States v. Merrival, 521 F.3d 889, 890 (8th Cir. 2008)

(abuse-of-discretion review); see also United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824

(8th Cir. 2009) (applying presumption of substantive reasonableness to revocation

sentence within Guidelines range), and that Widener’s challenge to the RRC

condition is without merit, see United States v. Melton, 666 F.3d 513, 517-18 (8th

Cir. 2012) (requiring defendant to temporarily reside at RRC as condition of

supervised release has been regularly upheld as reasonable condition).

The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

______________________________

-2-
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF PERIODIC REPORT**

**PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, the undersigned, Jay C. Peterson, Chief FinancialOfficer of Forgent Networks, Inc. (the “Company”), do hereby certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       The quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended October 31,2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended, and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ JAY C. PETERSON     |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Jay C. Peterson         |   |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|   | December 17, 2007  |   |
|        |                         |        |  |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ForgentNetworks, Inc. and will be retained by Forgent Networks, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. Theforegoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosuredocument.

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BALANCE
SHEET INCOME STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  152,271
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               152,271
<PP&E>                                           6,225
<DEPRECIATION>                                     106
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 158,390
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          255,467
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,440
<OTHER-SE>                                    (99,517)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   158,390
<SALES>                                            200
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   200
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   76,347
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,584
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (93,731)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (94,531)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.004)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.004)


</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

The undersigned executive officer of Commonwealth Bancorp, Inc. (the
Registrant) hereby certifies that the Registrants Form 10-Q for the three
months ended September 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Registrant.



|                                            
|--------------------------------------------
|/s/ Patrick J. Ward                         
|                                            
|Name: Patrick J. Ward                       
|Title: President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: November 6, 2002
454 A.2d 173

#### Commonwealth v. McCowin, Sr., Appellant.

Argued September 23, 1981.

Daniel W. Shoemaker, for appellant; Sheryl Ann Dorney, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before BROSKY, McEWEN and BECK, JJ.

The order of the learned York County Common Pleas Court Judge Emanuel A. Cassimatis is affirmed.
STATE of Louisiana v. Samuel ANDERSON a/k/a Samuel Brent Anderson

No. 2018-K-90

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 1, 2018

**ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT, PARISH OF EVANGELINE**

Writ denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant in part and assigns reasons.

Hughes, J., would grant the writ in part.

Respectfully, in my opinion, "I wish I had a lawyer" is enough.
HeinOnline -- 41 Fed. Reg. 42012 1976
HeinOnline -- 41 Fed. Reg. 42013 1976
HeinOnline -- 41 Fed. Reg. 42014 1976
HeinOnline -- 41 Fed. Reg. 42015 1976
HeinOnline -- 41 Fed. Reg. 42016 1976
HeinOnline -- 41 Fed. Reg. 42017 1976
HeinOnline -- 41 Fed. Reg. 42018 1976
HeinOnline -- 41 Fed. Reg. 42019 1976
HeinOnline -- 41 Fed. Reg. 42020 1976
HeinOnline -- 41 Fed. Reg. 42021 1976
HeinOnline -- 41 Fed. Reg. 42022 1976
HeinOnline -- 41 Fed. Reg. 42023 1976
HeinOnline -- 41 Fed. Reg. 42024 1976
HeinOnline -- 41 Fed. Reg. 42025 1976
HeinOnline -- 41 Fed. Reg. 42026 1976
HeinOnline -- 41 Fed. Reg. 42027 1976