alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1190 Prepped by Candice Davis



### Document

Number: 

# 64 ) II-B-2 Docket Number: 

# A-90-2 8

Printed 5/5/2008 9:13:51 AM

Sheet 64 of 106P. 2



# Facsimile Cove

r Shee t AMERICA N AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATIO N 743 0 Secon d Avenu e Suit e 30 0 Detroit , M I 4820 2 Telephone : (313)872-431 1 Facsimile : (313)872-540 0 ASSOCIATION O F INTERNATIONA L AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS 100119t h Street , Nort

h Suite 120 0 Rosslyn , V

A 2220 9 Telephone : (703 ) 525-778 8 Facsimile : (703)525-881 7 Fro m G .A . Espe r and G J . Dan a Dat e September 27,199 5 (313)871-2305/(703)525-778 8 (313 ) 872-5400/(703 ) 525-881 7 (Retur n FacsimU e Number ) T O Compan y Le e Cook/Davi d Dickinso n U.S . BP A Messag e Tota l #Page s Includin g Coyer : 1 FAX Number/Spee d Dia l (202 ) 233-959 6 Th e America

n Automobil e Manufacturers Association (AAMA ) and th e Associatio n o f Internationa

l Automobil e Manufacturers , Inc . (AIAM) hereb y notif y th e U.S . Envifonmenta l ftataGfe p Agenc y o

f ou r inten t t o presen t ora l testimon y a t th e hearing to conside

r awaite r ^pes t \ : fo r ©Slibmi a&W

I requirements, scheduled fo r Octobe r 17,199 5 (6 0 Fed . Reg . 4106$ , Augus t 11,199$) .



## ii*v r • ." " "i

u i 199 5 m



# _ J orr r \ I

a I
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNRYGENERAL OF **TEXAE AUSTIN** 

Eonorable

Ben 0. Oneal,Prerddrnt Mate Board of Bduoation Auetin,Tsxae bar sirr

whiah you ask t **above** oaptioned a, Vernont8 **knaotawa** hereby @a,,

olausb”*l You are interslrted in ths.inte p tati n ot the .provfdea

**rurther,** that suoh fiu&r hfgh aohoel textbook8

shell be fumiahad trsr only to suah eahool**6tstenM** aa maintain junior high 8ohoolorgenieations, a& oertified **by** the proper oohool authoritierr to the State Board of Eduoation.

*Xonorabls

Ben Oq Oneel,Prtmidont, Page 8

Y o u l8k wðerunder the sbotr p u 0w a seotionthe Board of Eauostion

nay adopt textbooks to be wed **ror** inrtruotlon In gradesabots the juniorhi&h sob001 levels. ~This sootion **s~th~rtiee the**  **SaOptf0S 0r**  tsttbooke **o&y** 

### r0r junior high eohools. 'PO

hold that it applieo to other sohools

would **be** oontrery

to **the** plainw0Mieg of **th** Statute. **xt** 

### 18 ntdrsrt that grsdes above the junior h&h sohoollore18

would not bs per@ or the junior

hii@ sahoolr It r0iiotte **thitt** yocr question **must be**  **SWJWS~a in**  the **iM@QtiVS. 39**  **‘ hX.**  **fW. 1%X.** 

You also ask whether textbooks may **ba** sdoptrd fer eaes r seven, eight, and nine in sohoolanot hsvb orgnniwd War hQh sahools. It 18 Our opfnlonthat ual.ess 8 junior high school is aUslnistretltsly sst up aaa operated as mob, 8eo0lon8 or ArtloloINMa has no appllortlon. It it Is ao #et up and Opttrated, than SOOtiOna would apply to the adoption of tartbooks. JY it is not, t&on thr adoption of textbooks would be goreanad by other statutory provislons. See Artiolre2813; pB44, SS44a,SsotloaI+

/ ATTORNEY

GENERAL

OF TEXAS
Exhibit 32.1   PACIFIC WEBWORKS, INC.  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  The undersigned executive officers of Pacific WebWorks, Inc. certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:  • the annual report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  • the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date:  March 31, 2010/s/ Kenneth W. Bell
Kenneth W. Bell
Chief Executive Officer



/s/ R. Brett Bell
R. Brett Bell
Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Benjamin HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-31048 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 7, 2017

Mary Patricia Jones, Frederick A. Men-ner, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Jennifer McDaniel Kleinpeter, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Middle District of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Benjamin Harris, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and COSTA, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM: *

Benjamin Harris, federal prisoner # 04549-095, seeks leave to proceed in *211forma pauperis (IFP) from the district court’s denial of his motion to reduce the sentence he received after he was convicted of crack cocaine and firearms offenses. Harris was originally sentenced as a career offender to a total of 226 months of imprisonment. His sentence was commuted to 180 months in an Executive Grant of Clemency. By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Harris is challenging the district court’s determination that he is not entitled to proceed IFP in this appeal from the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5).

“‘[A] judgment of conviction that includes [a sentence of imprisonment] constitutes a final judgment’ ” and may not be modified by a district court except in limited circumstances. *Dillon v. United States,*560 U.S. 817, 824, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). The district court must first determine whether a prisoner is eligible for a reduction under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. *Id.*If he is eligible, then the district court must “consider any applicable [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors and determine whether, in its discretion,” any reduction is warranted under the particular facts of the case. *Id.*at 827, 130 S.Ct. 2683.

Although the district court did not state whether it first determined whether Harris was entitled to a reduction under § IB 1.10, a prisoner who was sentenced as a career offender is not eligible for a sentence reduction under § 1B1.10 because his sentence was not based on a guidelines range that was subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission. *See United States v. Anderson,*591 F.3d 789, 791 (5th Cir. 2009); § 3582(c)(2). Further, Harris’s argument that the district court had the discretion not to sentence him as a career offender but to sentence him based on the § 3553(a) factors is frivolous, as a § 3582(c)(2) motion may not be used to challenge the correctness of an original sentence. *See Dillon,*560 U.S. at 831, 130 S.Ct. 2683.

Because Harris has not demonstrated that his “appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits,” *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), the motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202 & n. 24; 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. .
---

**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**

I,
  Cory Gelmon, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Banyan Corporation (the "Registrant");

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Registrant and we
have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.

5. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
Registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal controls; and

6. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal
controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: April 16, 2007

| | /s/ Cory Gelmon                           
| | ------------------------------------------
| |                                           
| | Cory Gelmon, President and Chief Financial
| | Officer                                   

---
#### TUPUOLA, Plaintiff v. TOGIA, Defendant

No. 12-1912

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division [Land: “Maia”, “Lotopa”, “Afaga” and “Leoneuli” in Fitiuta County]

January 23, 1913

[Names of Judges unknown]

DECISION

The plaintiff in this case claims ownership of four pieces of land known as MAIA, LOTOPA, AFAGA and LEONEULI, situated in the county of Fitiuta. The defendant Togia opposes the claim of Tupuola and asserts that Togia and his ancestors have owned the four pieces of land for many years; that the plaintiff, his relatives and ancestors have been allowed to use the four pieces of land by the permission of Togia and his ancestors, but that Tupuola has wrongfully asserted ownership of the lands in dispute.

The evidence presented by each side shows many discrepancies and contradictions. It is admitted by Togia,that the ancestors of Tupuola have been buried on some of the lands, and Togia has attempted to explain this proof of ownership by asserting that Togia’s ancestor ordered Tupuola’s ancestors to be interred in the land of Togia. Togia testified that he returned to Manua in 1893 after an absence of four years in the Malua School, Upolu Island, and Tupuola’s relatives were then using the land; that they continued to use the lands for a period of twelve years, two years longer than is required by the law of adverse posses*271sion, until 1905- when Togia attempted to expel them from the land.

The testimony of Togia in his own behalf was, on the whole, weak and unconvincing. However the evidence regarding the transfer of a portion of the land LOTOPA by Togia to Taua places that piece of land in a different class from the other pieces of land, viz., MAIA, AFAGA and LEONEULI.

This transfer was admitted by Tupuola and he likewise admitted that Togia was the person who made the transfer to Taua of a portion of the land LOTOPA. In the opinion of the Court this proof of ownership establishes Togia’s title to the land LOTOPA.

Upon consideration of the evidence the court finds that the plaintiff Tupuola is the owner of the following three pieces of land, MAIA, AFAGA and LEONEULI, and that Togia is the owner of the land LOTOPA.

Let a decree issue accordingly.

Costs of court $35.00 will be assessed against both parties in equal shares, $17.50 to be paid by Tupuola and $17.50 to be paid by Togia.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CFO

STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, Gregory C. Talbott is the Senior Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer/Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of PFF Bancorp, Inc. (the Company).

This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ending September 30, 2007 (the Report).

By execution of this statement, I certify that:



| | A) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o (d)) and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | B) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods covered by the Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that this
statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that this statement
be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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



|                 |  |                                                                                                                  
|---------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|November 9, 2007 |  | /s/ Gregory C. Talbott                                                                                           
|Dated            |  | Gregory C. Talbott Senior Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer/Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
| Name of Business                      |   | Doing Business As                     |   | State of Incorporation |
|---------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|------------------------|
|                                  |   |                                  |   |                   |
| Metro Bank                            |   | Metro Bank                            |   | Pennsylvania           |
|                                  |   |                                  |   |                   |
| Commerce Harrisburg Capital Trust I   |   | Commerce Harrisburg Capital Trust I   |   | Delaware               |
|                                  |   |                                  |   |                   |
| Commerce Harrisburg Capital Trust II  |   | Commerce Harrisburg Capital Trust II  |   | Delaware               |
|                                  |   |                                  |   |                   |
| Commerce Harrisburg Capital Trust III |   | Commerce Harrisburg Capital Trust III |   | Delaware               |
|                                  |   |                                  |   |                   |
|  MB DPC Holdings 1, LLC          |   |  MB DPC Holdings 1, LLC          |   | Pennsylvania           |

----
#### FAUOLO, Plaintiff v. TAUVAELUA, Defendant

No. 22-1911

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Appellate Division

April 5, 1912

W. M. CROSE, *President of High Court*

DECISION ON APPEAL

After a careful review of the proceedings of .the High Court in the case of *Fauolo v. Tauvaelua,*1 A.S.R. 260 (1912), the decision of the High Court is affirmed, except in the case of the land SOLOTAI.

The limits of the land SOLOTAI are not clearly set forth in the complaint and were not understood by the defense; and the identity of the land is not established to the satisfaction of the President of the High Court.

The President of .the High Court does not rule upon the ownership of the land SOLOTAI, and that part of the decision of the High Court as regards the ownership of the land SOLOTAI is hereby set aside.

Let a decree therefore issue, vesting the title of the lands LUMAUTU, PUGAPUGA, FETAI, LEPANO, SOLO-TAO (also called Solouta), FAGAONE and TIALAA in the name FAUOLO.

Costs of this appeal are assessed at $20.00 to be paid by defendant Tauvaelua.
Exhibit 10.25


to Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period Ended
March 31, 2012


 


WAIVER OF NOTICE DATE


 


This Waiver of Notice
Date is dated and effective this April 3, 2012 (“Effective Date”), by and between Richard W. Blackstone, an individual
whose address is 4846 Sarasota Drive, Hilliard, Ohio 43026 (“Blackstone” or “Employee”) and Daleco Resources
Corporation (“Daleco” or “Employer”) (collectively the “Parties”) with respect to the employment
agreement between Daleco, as the employer, and Blackstone, as the employee, originally dated October 4, 2006 as such employment
agreement has been extended from time to time and modified and amended on January 19, 2009 (“Employment Agreement”).


 


Exclusively for the purposes
of the renewal date of the Employment Agreement which would occur automatically on October 4, 2012, Blackstone and Daleco hereby
absolutely waive and relinquish the following 90 day prior written notice provision of the second sentence of Paragraph 3(a) of
the initial agreement dated October 4, 2006:


 


“After the expiration of the
Initial Term and subject to the termination provisions set forth herein, this Agreement will automatically be extended for successive
one (1) year terms (“Subsequent Term”) provided that neither party has given written notice to the other of his/its
intent not to renew not less than ninety (90) days prior to the respective renewal date.”


 


In lieu of such ninety
(90) day prior written notice provision, the parties agree that the Employment Agreement will be automatically renewed on October
4, 2012, unless either of the Parties, i.e., Daleco or Blackstone, gives written notice to the other not later than July 31, 2012,
of his/its intent not to renew the Employment Agreement.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the Parties have executed this Waiver of Notice Date as of the Effective Date.


 


	EMPLOYER: DALECO RESOURCES CORPORATION
	 	 	 
	Attest:	 	 
	 	 	 
	/s/ David A. Grady	 	/s/ Gary J. Novinskie
	David A. Grady, Secretary, and on behalf of the Compensation Committee	 	Gary J. Novinskie, President
	 	 	 
	EMPLOYEE: RICHARD W. BLACKSTONE
	/s/ Richard W. Blackstone	 	 
	Richard W. Blackstone, Individually
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dion Paul BARNES, also known as Douglas M. Barnes, also known as Christopher Singleton, also known as Terrell Rios, also known as Myron Brooks, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-30828 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 2, 2017

Carol Mignonne Griffing, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s' Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Elizabeth Cary Dougherty, Esq., Dougherty Law Firm, L.L.C., Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Dion Paul Barnes appeals his conviction and sentence following his guilty plea, pursuant to a written agreement, to conspiracy to make, utter, and possess counterfeit securities. He argues, for the first time on appeal, that the Government breached its agreement to recommend a third-level reduction in his offense level for acceptance of responsibility and to permit him to freely litigate the loss amount attributable to him. We review for plain error. *See Puckett v. United States,*556 U.S. 129, 134, 143, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009); *United States v. Hinojosa,*749 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2014).

We look to whether the Government’s conduct was consistent with the parties’ reasonable understanding of the agreement. *See Hinojosa,*749 F.3d at 413; *United States v. Gonzalez,*309 F.3d 882, 886 (5th Cir. 2002). Here, the Government satisfied its obligation when it moved in the plea agreement for a one-point reduction. Absent the district court’s award of the initial two levels for acceptance of responsibility, the Government cannot be said to have had any further obligation under the plea agreement with respect to acceptance of responsibility. *See*U.S.S.G. § 3E1,1(b); *Hinojosa,*749 F.3d at 413; *United States v. Hernandez-Garcia,*442 Fed.Appx. 136, 137 (5th Cir. 2011); *United States v. Stetzel,*183 Fed.Appx. 432, 434 (5th Cir. 2006). Nor does the record show that the Government breached the plea agreement with respect to Barnes’s freedom to litigate, the loss amount, as the Government’s argument was that Barnes was not entitled to a two-level reduction because he had lied and had denied relevant conduct.

Even if, for the sake of argument, the Government’s objection to Barnes’s receiving a reduction for acceptance of responsibility was contrary to Barnes’s reasonable understanding of the agreement, he cannot show the Government’s purported breach affected his substantial rights. *See Hinojosa,*749 F.3d at 411. Given Barnes’s conduct with respect to his identity and that he denied all relevant conduct, he was not entitled to a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under § 3El.l(a). *312
      *See*U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a), (b), comment. (nn.1(A), 3).

The judgment of the district court is 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,
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 Quarterly Report of Capital Corp of the West (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas T. Hawker,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:





(1)
    The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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





Date: May
5, 2005





/s/
    Thomas
      T. HawkerThomas
      T. HawkerPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer