alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SPAR Group, Inc.


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the quarterly  report on Form 10-Q for the three month period
ended March 31, 2004 (this "report"),  of SPAR Group,  Inc. (the  "registrant"),
the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

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 registrant.



                                 /s/ Robert G. Brown
                                 -----------------------------------------------

                                 Robert G. Brown
                                 Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

                                 May 18, 2004

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

                                      Ex-3
#### Margaret Holland, Resp’t, *v.*Benjamin Block, App’lt.

Appeal from tenth district court.

Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         387,160
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               398,198
<PP&E>                                         514,260
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 912,458
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          74,163
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,177
<OTHER-SE>                                     837,118
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   912,458
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5,784
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               155,058
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (149,274)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (147,604)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (147,604)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.03)



</TABLE>
#### Mohamed Joshim UDDIN, Also Known as Jasim Uddin, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No, 16-60160 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 3, 2017

*245Khagendra Gharti Chhetry, Esq., Counsel, Chhetry & Associates, P.C., New York, NY, for Petitioner

Lyle Davis Jentzer, Esq., Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Erik R. Quick, Esq., Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/OIL, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Mohamed Uddin, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). He challenges the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal under the Immigration & Nationality Act, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”),

The BIA concluded that the record supported an adverse credibility finding and that Uddin’s evidence was “insufficiently persuasive” to establish his eligibility for relief from removal. Given the inconsistencies in Uddin’s testimonial and documentary evidence that the BIA noted, Uddin has not shown that the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. *See Wang v. Holder,*569 F.3d 531, 538 (5th Cir. 2009); *Efe v. Ashcroft,*293 F.3d 899, 908 (5th Cir. 2002).

As for Uddin’s claims that the BIA erred in failing to address the other grounds of denial explained by the immigration judge, those challenges have not been exhausted. *See Claudio v. Holder,*601 F.3d 316, 318 (5th Cir. 2010). Uddin did not assert them to the BIA in his notice to appeal or in a subsequent brief, and the BIA did not address them. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over those unex-hausted claims. *See id.*

The petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.

*

 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.
The Hon orable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Easter n 1 District of Missouri. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-1413

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. C. L. Tippett, * * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: August 7, 1997

Filed: August 25 , 1997

___________ Bef ore McMILLIAN, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD , Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
C.L. Tippett challenges the 262-month sentenc e imposed by the district court following his guilty plea 1 to a ttempting to possess cocaine with intent t o distribute , in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We affirm.-2-

On appeal, Tippett argues that the district cour t erred in not assessing an additional 1-level reduction to his base offense level under U.S. Sentencing Guideline s-3-

Manual § 3E1.1(b) (1995) for acceptance o f resp onsibility; in increasing his base offense leve l under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1 .1(c) (1995) for being an organizer, leader, manager, or s upervisor of
a criminal activity; and in not reducing his offens e level unde r U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2(b) (199 5) for being a minor participant. Because Tippet t did n ot object to the presentence report or raise th e above argu ments at sentencing, we review his contentions only for plain error resulting in a fundamenta l miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Robinson , 20 F.3d 32 0, 323 (8th Cir. 1994); United States v. Ball , 999 F.2d 339, 340-41 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam)

. Having rev iewed the record, we find no such error in the district court & s adjustments to Perez & s base offens e level.
Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHT H CIRCUIT.
KPMG (LOGO)

401 South Tryon Street
Suite 2300
Charlotte, NC 28202-1911

Independent Accountants' Report

The Board of Directors
First Union National Bank:

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying management
assertion,  that First Union  National Bank (the Bank) complied with the minimum
servicing  standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers  Association of America's
(MBA) Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers (USAP), except for
minimum  servicing  standards V.4. and VI. 1., which the MBA has  interpreted as
being  inapplicable to the servicing of commercial and multifamily  loans, as of
and for the year ended  December 31, 1999.  Management  is  responsible  for the
Bank's compliance with those minimum servicing standards.  Our responsibility is
to  express an opinion on  management's  assertion  about the Bank's  compliance
based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with attestation standards established by
the  American  Institute  of  Certified  Public  Accountants  and,  accordingly,
included examining,  on a test basis,  evidence about the Bank's compliance with
thc applicable minimum servicing  standards and performing such other procedures
as  we  considered  necessary,  in  the  circumstances.   We  believe  that  our
examination  provides a reasonable  basis for our opinion.  Our examination does
not provide a legal  determination on the Bank's  compliance with the applicable
minimum servicing standards.

In our  opinion,  management's  assertion  that  the Bank  has  complied  in all
material respects with the aforementioned applicable minimum servicing standards
as of and for the year ended December 31, 1999 is fairly stated, in all material
respects.


KPMG LLP
February 4, 2000



KPMG LLP. KPMGG LP, a limited liability partnership, is a member of KPMG
International, a Swiss association
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1999

Commission File Number: 333-44299-01

Heller Financial Commercial Mortgage Asset Corporation issuer
in respect of Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
Series 1999-PH1
(Exact Name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware      			364202202
(State or Other Juris-		(I.R.S. Employer
diction of Incorporation)     Identification No.)

500 West Monroe Street, Chicago, IL 60661
(Address of Principal Executive Office)

312-441-7000
(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)


Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the
Act:     None

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the
Act:     None

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all
reports required to be filed  by Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months
(or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to
file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing
requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes  X   No _

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers
pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein,
and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's
knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements
incorporated by reference in part III of this Form 10-K or any
amendment to this Form 10-K.

Not applicable.

Aggregate market value of voting stock held by non-affiliates of
the Registrant as of December 31, 1999.

Not applicable.

Number of shares of common stock outstanding as of December 31,
1999.

Not applicable.
---

---

Exhibit 14.1

KOST FORER & GABBAY

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the following Registration Statements:

| | 1. | Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-11894) pertaining to the           AudioCodes Ltd.
1999 Key Employee Option Plan (F) and the AudioCodes Ltd. 1999           Key Employee
Option Plan, Qualified Stock Option Plan-US Employees (F),
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2. | Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-13268) pertaining to the           AudioCodes Ltd.
1999 Key Employee Option Plan (F), as amended, and the           AudioCodes Ltd. 1999 Key
Employee Option Plan, Qualified Stock Option Plan-US           Employees (F),
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 3. | Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-105473) pertaining to the           AudioCodes Ltd.
1999 Key Employee Option Plan (F) and the AudioCodes Ltd. 1999           Key Employee
Option Plan, Qualified Stock Option Plan-US Employees (F) and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 4. | Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (File Number 333-13378) pertaining to the           AudioCodes Ltd.
2001 Employee Stock Purchase Plan-Global Non-U.S. and the           AudioCodes Ltd. 2001
U.S. Employee Stock Purchase Plan.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of our report dated March 28, 2007,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements of AudioCodes Ltd. included in this
Annual Report (Form 20-F) of AudioCodes Ltd.

|                 |                                 
|---------------- | --------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|Tel-Aviv, Israel | KOST FORER GABBAY & KASIERER    
|June 27, 2007    | A member of Ernst & Young Global



---

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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> BD
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998             SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             785                     650
<RECEIVABLES>                               67,498,816              56,355,107
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0                       0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                        226,377,496             167,831,665
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             293,877,097             224,187,422
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0                       0
<PAYABLES>                                   9,094,771               6,632,531
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0                       0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                   0                       0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                 284,782,326             217,554,891
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               293,877,097             224,187,422
<TRADING-REVENUE>                           43,933,836              10,399,485
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                         9,108,742               9,025,062
<COMMISSIONS>                               18,671,552              14,427,955
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                        0                       0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<COMPENSATION>                                       0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             34,371,026               4,996,592
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                  34,371,026               4,996,592
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                34,371,026               4,996,592
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    20.98                    1.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    20.98                    1.71
        

</TABLE>
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 14

- 00030

- CV

Mary Melinda Barnes

v. Navarro Hospital, LP, Navarro Regional, LLC, d/b/a NAVREG, LLC

On Appeal from the 13th District Court of Navarro County , Texas Trial Cause No. 11

- 20865

- CV

JUDGMENT
THE THIRTEENT H COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.
We further order this decision certified below for observance. August 29, 2014
#### In the Matter of Richard A. Knight, an Attorney, Appellant. The Bar Association of the City of New York, Respondent.

Argued May 17, 1943;

decided June 10, 1943.

*872
      *John T. Cahill for*motion.

*Richard A. Knight,*in person, opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed on the ground that no substantial constitutional question is involved.
6/20/12 

Document Management Facility 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S. E. 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

Washington, D. C. 20590 

Re: AOPA/EAA Medical Exemption request 

Strongly recommend approval of referenced request. 

I hold an FAA issued private pilot license with over 6000 hours ofrnilitary single 

seat and two place experimental aircraft time. Presently I fly experimental 

aircraft around 80 hours annually for recreational and personal travel purposes. 

It is my opinion there is a significant number of reasons to approve the medical 

exemption request. A couple are discussed below. 

Self assessment of my fitness to fly was established early in my flying career with 

systematic guidance from military training and Navy flight surgeons. No like 

system exists for recreational general aviation pilots that I am aware of. 

Therefore I see significant value in an online educational program that teaches 

self medical assessment of fitness to fly. 

Locally I have observed several W.W.II and Korea era general aviation pilots give 

up flying long before necessary because of the "hassle" and expense of 

maintaining FAA dictated medicals. Cost savings to individuals/government and 

the increase in aviation activity from approval of the request should be 

significant. 

Recommend approval this exemption request at the earliest opportunity; "time is 

money" in this case. Aviation and our economy needs the help. 

Sin ely, red~ t fnes /; h M. J?G--0 ~ e , " ---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. German Gonzalez GUERRERO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51216 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 24, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

German Gonzalez Guerrero, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent German Gonzalez Guerrero 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). Gonzalez Guerrero 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 nonfrivo-lous 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.
#### Douglas Luther MYSER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steven TANGEN, Defendant; Spokane County, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-35169

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 14, 2016 *

Filed December 22, 2016

Douglas Luther Myser, Pro Se

Steven Tangen, Pro Se

Daniel Paul Crowner, Esquire, Attorney, Patterson Buchanan Fobes *&*Leitch, Inc., P.S., Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Myser’s request for oral argument, set forth in his reply brief, is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Douglas Luther Myser appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging fraud on the court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

*1007§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal of an independent action to set aside a prior judgment for fraud on the court. *Appling v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,*340 F.3d 769, 780 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court did not- abuse its discretion by dismissing Myser’s action for failure to state a claim because the alleged perjury by witnesses and mischaracterization of the relevant legal standard by Spokane’s attorneys do not amount to fraud on the court. *See id.*(explaining that “[fjraud on the court requires a grave miscarriage of justice” and “perjury by a party or witness, does not, by itself, amount to fraud on the court” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); *see also United States v. Estate of Stonehill,*660 F.3d 415, 444 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Most fraud on the court cases involve a scheme by one party to hide a key fact from the court and the opposing party.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Myser’s amended complaint without leave to amend because further amendment would be futile. *See Zueco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp.,*552 F.3d 981, 1007 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and stating that district court may deny leave to amend when plaintiff has failed to cure deficiencies by previous amendments and further amendment would be futile).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

   CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, John Chapple, President, Chief Executive Officer
and Chairman of the Board, certify that:

1. To my knowledge, this report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. To my knowledge, the information in this report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Nextel
Partners, Inc. as of December 31, 2004.

Date: March 16, 2005                         /s/JOHN CHAPPLE
                                             ---------------
                                             John Chapple
                                             President, Chief Executive Officer
                                             and Chairman of the Board