alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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:  1. the annual report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2008, 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date:  March 31, 2009/s/ Kenneth W. Bell
Kenneth W. Bell
Chief Executive Officer



/s/ R. Brett Bell
R. Brett Bell
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATE 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 North Central Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David M. Bradley, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and2)
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.May 11, 2011
/s/ David M. BradleyDated
David M. BradleyChairman, President & CEO
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Manuel Fabian VELASQUEZ-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41394 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 28, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Manuel Fabian Velasquez-Ortiz pleaded guilty to reentry of a deported alien. The presentence report (PSR) calculated Velasquez-Ortiz’s recommended sentencing range based, in relevant part, on two controlled substance convictions from 1991. Velasquez-Ortiz argues that the district court erred in finding that his parole had been revoked and that he had been incar*286cerated within 15 years of the commencement of the current offense for the 1991 convictions.

We review a district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. *United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez,*517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). Plain error review applies where the defendant fails to object in the district court. *Puckett v. United States,*556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009); *United States v. Mondragon-Santiago,*564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009). Contrary to Velasquez-Ortiz’s assertions, he did not object to the district court’s factual finding or its reliance on the PSR to determine that his parole had been revoked with respect to the 1991 convictions. *See United States v. Neal,*578 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir. 2009).

Velasquez-Ortiz has pointed to no rebuttal evidence showing that the district court erred in adopting the facts contained in the PSR. *See United States v. Floyd,*343 F.3d 363, 372 (5th Cir. 2003); *United States v. Gomez-Alvarez,*781 F.3d 787, 796-797 (5th Cir. 2015). Velasquez-Ortiz admitted that he was incarcerated in 2013 related to the 1991 convictions. Additionally, the Government, without objection, has supplemented the record with documents showing that Velasquez-Ortiz’s parole from the 1991 convictions was revoked and that he was incarcerated for those convictions within 15 years of the commencement of the current offense. Velasquez-Ortiz has failed to show any error, clear or plain, by the district court.

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.
Second Amendment to Operating Agreement of Turbine Powered Technology, LLC




 Exhibit 10.19 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO 
 OPERATING AGREEMENT OF 
 TURBINE POWERED TECHNOLOGY, LLC 

This Second Amendment (this “Amendment”) to Operating Agreement of Turbine Powered Technology, LLC, dated as of November 9,
2011, of Turbine Powered Technology, LLC, a Louisiana limited liability company (the “Company”), amends the Operating Agreement of the Company, effective as of September 22, 2011, as amended by the First Amendment to Operating
Agreement dated October 28, 2011 (the “LLC Agreement”) of the Company, and is made by the members of the Company, who are Green Field Energy Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation (f/k/a Green Field Energy Services, LLC, a Louisiana
limited liability company)(“GFES”), and MTT Properties, LLC, a Louisiana limited liability company (“MTT,” and together with GFES, the “Members”). Capitalized terms that are used but not defined herein shall have the
meanings set forth in the LLC Agreement. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Members hereby amend the LLC Agreement as follows: 

Section 1. Amendments to LLC Agreement. The LLC Agreement is hereby amended as follows: 

(a) A Article 1.3 is hereby amended and restated as follows: 
 “1.3 Formation. The Company has been formed as a Louisiana limited liability company by filing Articles of Organization in accordance with the Act effective as of September 22,
2011.” 
 (b) A new sentence is hereby added to the end of Article 22.1 as follows: 

“Notwithstanding the foregoing, so long as any Notes are outstanding, the Company will not issue any certificates evidencing the
Units and Interests in the Company held by GFES without the prior written consent of the collateral agent on behalf of the Notes holders.” 
 (c) With respect to the name of the Company, each reference to “Turbine Powered Technology, L.L.C.” is hereby replaced with “Turbine Powered Technology, LLC”, so as to remove the
reference to periods in the limited liability company designation. 
 Section 2. Miscellaneous. 

(a) Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and the same
agreement, and shall become effective when one or more counterparts have been signed by each of the parties hereto and delivered (including by facsimile) to the other parties hereto. 








 (b) Ratification. Except as amended hereby, the LLC Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect as previously executed, and each Member hereby ratifies the LLC Agreement as amended hereby. 
 [Signature
page follows.] 

  
 2 









 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Members, who are all of the members of the Company,
intending to be legally bound, have caused this Amendment to be duly executed and delivered as of the date first set forth above. 
  

			
	GREEN FIELD ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
		
	By:	 	    /s/ Michel B. Moreno
		 	  

	Name:	 	Michel B. Moreno
	Title:	 	Chief Executive Officer
	
	MTT PROPERTIES, LLC
		
	By:	 	    /s/ Ted McIntyre II
		 	  

	Name:	 	Ted McIntyre II
	Title:	 	Manager


 Signature Page to Second Amendment to 

Operating Agreement of 
 Turbine Powered Technology, LLC
#### Douglas Earl LEITER, also known as William Jackson Petitioner-Appellant v. Christopher NICKRENZ, Warden, FPC—Duluth Respondent-Appellee

No. 17-1263

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: September 7, 2017

Filed: September 11, 2017

Douglas Earl Letter, Pro Se

Ann M. Bildtsen, Bahram Samie, Ana H. Voss, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, for Respondent-Appellee

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Douglas Earl Letter, a/k/a William Jackson, appeals following the dismissal of an action which the district court1 construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which *471Leiter challenged a prison disciplinary proceeding that resulted in his loss of good-time credits. Although we recognize that Leiter was not exclusively seeking restoration of his good-time credits, we conclude that the matter was properly construed as a section 2241 petition. Cf. Portley-El v. Brill, 288 F.3d 1063, 1066 (8th Cir. 2002) (because good-time credits affect length of inmate’s confinement, habeas corpus is exclusive federal remedy when prisoner seeks restoration of good-time credits taken away by prison disciplinary proceeding).

Having carefully reviewed the record, however, we conclude the case is now moot: Leiter was released from prison while this appeal was pending, return of the good-time credits would have no effect on his current term of supervised release, and at this time we see no collateral consequences from the challenged disciplinary action. See United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 54-59, 120 S.Ct. 1114, 146 L.Ed.2d 39 (2000) (supervised release begins when prisoner is released from prison; excess prison time served cannot offset term of supervised release); cf. Leonard v. Nix, 55 F.3d 370, 372-73 (8th Cir.1995) (release of prisoner (subsequently reincarcerated) did not moot habeas petition where challenged disciplinary action had collateral consequences).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

1

, The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of Minne-sola, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Becky R. Thorson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota,
bonz_ex103.htm


 

Exhibit 10.3


 





 




  






 


 




  





1











  









 




  





2











  









 




  





3











  









 




  





4











  









 




  





5











  









 




  





6











  









 




  





7











  









 




  





8











  









 




  





9











  









 




  





10











  









 




  





11











  









 


 


12
#### Jose Luis Valle CHACON, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III,1 Attorney General of the United States, Respondent

No. 16-2266

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 10, 2017

Filed: May 25, 2017

Jose Luis Valle Chacon, Pro Se

Karen Yolanda Drummond, Carl H. McIntyre, Jeffrey Ronald Meyer, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

1

. Jefferson B. Sessions, III has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c),

PER CURIAM.

Jose Luis Valle Chacon, a citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals adopting the decision of an immigration judge to deny Chacon both asylum and withholding of removal, after finding that Chacon was not credible, and had shown neither past persecution nor a well-founded fear of future persecution in El Salvador.2 After careful consideration, we con-*407elude that substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the denial of asylum and withholding of removal. Accordingly, we deny the petition. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

2

. The rulings regarding denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture and denial of voluntary departure are not before us. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004).
#### George Shaw, Appellant, *v.*Roover Bros., Inc., et al., Respondents.

Submitted February 23, 1943;

decided March 4, 1943.

Motion for reargument denied with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 289 N. Y. 348.)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles MOLNAR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-50428

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 19, 2017

*428Mandy L. Griffith, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee

Robert Anthony Garcia, Esquire, Law Office of Robert A. Garcia, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed, R. App. P. 34(a)(2),

MEMORANDUM **

Charles Molnar appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 188-month concurrent sentences imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for receipt and possession of material involving the sexual exploitation of minors, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2) and (a)(4)(B). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Molnar contends that the district court erred by increasing his sentence based on facts that were not alleged in the indictment nor proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This argument fails because the court’s factual findings affected neither the statutory maximum sentence nor any mandatory minimum sentence applicable to Molnar’s conviction, and, therefore, the Sixth Amendment was not violated. *See United States v. Vallejos,*742 F.3d 902, 906-07 (9th Cir. 2014).

Molnar next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the mitigating factors. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Molnar’s sentence. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The high-end sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. *See Gall,*552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. Furthermore, the record reflects that the district court considered Molnar’s mitigating arguments.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6514 

To require agencies to notify the Archivist of the date on which a final 

rule is submitted to Congress and the Government Accountability Office. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 30, 2023 

Mr. ALFORD (for himself, Mr. MEUSER, and Mr. FINSTAD) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and 

in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To require agencies to notify the Archivist of the date on 

which a final rule is submitted to Congress and the 

Government Accountability Office. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Holding Agencies Ac5 countable Act’’. 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6514 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO DISCLOSE DATE RULE IS SUB2 MITTED TO CONGRESS AND GAO. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Upon submission of a final rule 

4 to Congress and the Government Accountability Office, 

5 the head of the agency shall notify the Archivist of the 

6 date of such submission. The Archivist shall include such 

7 date in the Document Details of the rule published in the 

8 Federal Register. 

9 (b) AGENCY AND RULE DEFINED.—In this section, 

10 the terms ‘‘agency’’ and ‘‘rule’’ have the meaning given 

11 those terms in section 551 of title 5, United States Code. 

12 SEC. 3. COMPLIANCE WITH CUTGO. 

13 No additional amounts are authorized to be appro14 priated to carry out this Act. Such Act shall be carried 

15 out using amounts otherwise appropriated to the head of 

16 the agency. 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 31.1

Panolam Industries International, Inc.  Certification pursuant to Section 302  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  Certification

I,
Robert J. Muller, as the principal executive officer of the registrant, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Panolam Industries International, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 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-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
March 28, 2008

|/s/ROBERT J. MULLERRobert J. Muller Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---



QuickLinks
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brianna Beth BORGA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10470

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

Filed September 29, 2017

Allison C. Jaros, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU-Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jill Elayne Thorpe, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Brianna Beth Borga appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 36-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for importation of a quantity of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 960(a)(1) and (b)(3). We dismiss.

*483Borga argues that the district court procedurally erred by miscalculating the Guidelines range. The government contends that this appeal is barred by a valid appeal waiver. We review de novo whether a defendant has waived her right to appeal. *See United States v. Harris,*628 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011). The terms of the appeal waiver in Borga’s plea agreement unambiguously encompass the claims raised in this appeal. *See id.*at 1205-06. Contrary to Borga’s contention, the record reflects that she. waived her appellate rights knowingly and voluntarily. *See United States v. Watson,*582 F.3d 974, 986-87 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we dis- • miss pursuant to the valid waiver. *See Harris,*628 F.3d at 1207.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
To: Department of Energy

From: Andrew deLaski, Appliance Standards Awareness Project

Date: February 12, 2015

RE: ex parte communication

On January 14, representatives of energy efficiency advocates and fan manufacturers met to describe 

technical considerations related to fan efficiency with DOE.

The meeting participants described how fan efficiency varies with flow and pressure and reiterated 

support for an approach that takes into account these considerations. The meeting participants 

explained the impact of potential fan standards using the attached graphs.

Meeting participants:

Andrew deLaski, Appliance Standards Awareness Project

Neal Elliott, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy

Joanna Mauer, Appliance Standards Awareness Project (by phone)

Wade Smith, Air Movement and Control Assoc., International

Mike Wolf, Greenheck

Tom Catania, on behalf of Air Movement and Control Assoc., International

Mark Bublitz, New York Blower (by phone)

John Cymbalsky, DOE

Ashley Armstrong, DOE

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Andrew deLaski

Appliance Standards Awareness Project

Attachment
June 10, 2015

Mr. Stephen Blenkhorn

P.O. Box 203 Edgecomb, ME 04556

Dear Mr. Blenkhorn:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your May 11, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015- 1546), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
#### The Pioneer Paper Company, Respondent, *v.*Coe S. Buchanan, Appellant.

(Argued April 25, 1872;

decided April 30, 1872.)

*F. F. Bullard*for the appellant.

*A. Pond*for the respondent.

Agree to affirm. Fo opinion.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit
32.2








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 Annual Report of
Cardtrend International Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date here of (the "report"), I, Thomas CL Wong, Chief Financial 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





Dated this 15th day of
April, 2009








THOMAS
CL WONG


Thomas CL
Wong


Chief Financial
Officer