alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.01





CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Andrew Hidalgo, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of WPCS International Incorporated on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of WPCS International Incorporated.





By:

/s/    ANDREW HIDALGODate: July 29, 2011

Name:

Andrew HidalgoTitle:

Chief Executive Officer





I, Joseph Heater, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of WPCS International Incorporated on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of WPCS International Incorporated.





By:

/s/    JOSEPH HEATERDate: July 29, 2011

Name:

Joseph HeaterTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of drugstore.com, inc. (the “Company”)for the period ending January 1, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert A. Barton, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

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

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been providedto drugstore.com, inc. and will be retained by drugstore.com, inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

March 17, 2006
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 Annual Report of
RFG Acquisition I Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard F. Beston, Jr., certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge:





(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.





/s/
      Richard F. Beston, Jr.Richard
      F. Beston, Jr.Principal
      Executive OfficerMarch
      6,
2009
Exhibit 33.4
                                 ------------

                    REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH
                    ss.1122(d)(2)(vi) and ss.1122(d)(4)(xi)
                      of REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA


American Security Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and
Safeco Financial Institution Solutions, Inc. (affiliates of Assurant Inc.,
collectively the "Asserting Party") is responsible for assessing compliance as
of December 31, 2006 and for the period from January 1, 2006 through December
31, 2006 (the "Reporting Period") with the servicing criteria set forth in
ss.1122(d)(2)(vi), ss.1122(d)(4)(xi) and ss.1122(d)(4)(xii) of Title 17,
ss.229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations, which the Asserting Party
has concluded are applicable to the insurance escrow servicing activities it
performs with respect to all mortgage loan-tracking transactions covered by
this report. The transactions covered by this report include all mortgage
loan-tracking transactions for which the Asserting Party served as a Vendor on
behalf of Servicers for such asset-backed securities transactions that were
registered after January 1, 2006 with the Securities and Exchange Commission
pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Platform"). The scope of the
Asserting Party assertions excludes ss.1122(d)(4)(xii) of Title 17,
ss.229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations, which relates to servicing
activities that are performed by the Asserting Party with respect to the
Platform, but are not reported on herein.


The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with ss.1122(d)(2)(vi) and
ss.1122(d)(4)(xi) ("the Applicable Servicing Criteria") for the Reporting
Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party has complied, in all
material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting
Period with respect to the Platform taken as a whole. The Asserting Party used
the criteria set forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to
assess the compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

The Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with the
Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm,
has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the
Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Reporting Period ending
December 31, 2006 as set forth in this assertion.

     American Security Insurance Company
     Standard Guaranty Insurance Company
     Safeco Financial Institution Solutions, Inc.



       By: /s/ John Frobose
           -------------------
           John Frobose
           Senior Vice President

       Date: February 23, 2007
             -----------------
Exhibit 32.1

Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority (the Authority), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, on the date hereof:

(a) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Authority for the quarter ended December 31, 2007 filed on the date hereof with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



/s/    MITCHELL GROSSINGER
ETESSMitchell Grossinger Etess Chief Executive Officer, Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority February 14, 2008


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

Union Calendar No. 623 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6826 

[Report No. 118–738] 

To designate the visitor and education center at Fort McHenry National 

Monument and Historic Shrine as the Paul S. Sarbanes Visitor and 

Education Center. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 14, 2023 

Mr. MFUME (for himself, Mr. HOYER, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. HARRIS, Mr. 

RASKIN, Mr. TRONE, Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, and Mr. IVEY) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

NOVEMBER 14, 2024 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6826 RH

A BILL 

To designate the visitor and education center at Fort 

McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine as 

the Paul S. Sarbanes Visitor and Education Center. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6826 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The visitor and education center 

5 at Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic 

6 Shrine, currently located at 2400 E Fort Ave, Baltimore, 

7 MD 21230, is designated as the ‘‘Paul S. Sarbanes Visitor 

8 and Education Center’’. 

9 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg10 ulation, document, paper, or other document of the United 

11 States to the visitor center designated by subsection (a) 

12 shall be deemed to be a reference to the Paul S. Sarbanes 

13 Visitor and Education Center. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 623 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6826 

[Report No. 118–738] 

A BILL 

To designate the visitor and education center at 

cation Center. Shrine as the Paul S. Sarbanes Visitor and EduFort McHenry National Monument and Historic 

NOVEMBER 14, 2024 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### LNV CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Denise SUBRAMANIAM, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-35963

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

OCTOBER 6, 2017

Erick j. Haynie, Perkins Coie LLP, Gabrielle Richards, Martin & Richards, LLP, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Denise Subramaniam, Camarillo, CA, pro se.

*477Before: 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 **

Denise Subramaniam appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in LNV Corporation’s diversity action arising out of judicial foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Doe v. Abbott Labs.,*571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Subramaniam failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether LNV was not entitled to judicial foreclosure. *See*Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 73.0301, 86.710-86.715, *Brundrup v. ReconTrust Co., N.A.,*353 Or. 668, 303 P.3d 301, 315 (2013) (en banc) (“A trust deed follows the promissory note that it secures.”); *Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v. Walmsley,*277 Or.App. 690, 374 P.3d 937, 940 (2016) (concluding plaintiff entitled to enforce a promissory note where plaintiff established “that it possessed the note at the time of the foreclosure action and that the note was indorsed to plaintiff.”).

We reject as unsupported by the record Subramaniam’s contention that the district court was biased against her.

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). We do not consider documents not filed with the district court. *See United States v. Elias,*921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

All pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 61, 66, 71, 73, 75, and 76) and requests (Docket Entry No. 67) are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Peter SPITZAUER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30095

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 12, 2017 Seattle, Washington

Filed May 17, 2017

James A. Goeke, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-United States Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Washington, Spokane, WA, Rudy J. Verschoor, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSP — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Christopher Robert Black, Attorney, Teymur Askerov, Attorney, Law Office of Christopher Black, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before; McKEOWN, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Pursuant to the motion of the United States, the district court permitted disclosure of pre-existing business records subpoenaed by the grand jury in criminal proceedings against Michael Spitzauer. We have jurisdiction over Spitzauer’s appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Where (1) grand-jury proceedings have concluded and an indictment has issued; (2) the disclosure is sought for a legitimate purpose; and (3) the requested disclosure is for preexisting business , records generated for a purpose other than the grand jury investigation, the disclosure of the requested records does not compromise the integrity of the grand jury process and does not amount to a disclosure of matters occurring before the grand jury. *See United States v. Dynavac, Inc.,*6 F.3d 1407, 1411-12 (9th Cir. 1993). The facts of this case fall squarely within Dynavac’s holding and do not present “a rare and unusual case,” where learning which documents the grand jury subpoenaed would disclose information about its deliberative process. *See id.*at 1412 n.2.

AFFIRMED.

*

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tyrone Bobo JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-15207 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(June 20, 2017)

R. Brian Tanner, James D. Durham, Brian T. Rafferty, Edward J. Tarver, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Savannah, GA, Nancy Greenwood, Patricia Green Rhodes, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Augusta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Beau A. Worthington, appointed counsel for Tyrone Bobo Johnson in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Johnson’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 23.1
 
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-230746 on Form S-3 and in Registration Statement No. 333-210996 on Form S-8 of our reports dated February 20, 2020, relating to the consolidated financial statements of National CineMedia, Inc. and subsidiary, and the effectiveness of National CineMedia, Inc. and subsidiary’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of National CineMedia, Inc. for the year ended December 26, 2019.
 
 /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
 Denver, Colorado
 February 20, 2020
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jul-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1997
<CASH>                                         219,615
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,291,543
<ALLOWANCES>                                   126,673
<INVENTORY>                                    1,098,004
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,617,516
<PP&E>                                         672,511
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (311,676)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,343,899
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,064,497
<BONDS>                                        56,881
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       47,133
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,175,388
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,222,521
<SALES>                                        776,387
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               789,007
<CGS>                                          325,341
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  325,341
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,823,136
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               126,673
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             9,087
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,381,177)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,381,177)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,377,644)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.50)
        


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Collaborative Islet Transplant Registry Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                         March 15, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         2:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate cooperative agreement applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health/NIDDK, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Peter J. Kozel, Ph.D., Chief, Training and Mentored Research Section, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Room 7009, Bethesda, MD 20892,                         *kozelp@mail.nih.gov*, 301-594-4721.                    

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: March 1, 2022. 

Miguelina Perez,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-04623 Filed 3-3-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### Carnell DONALDSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, FCI COLEMAN MEDIUM, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-11432 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(April 18, 2017)

Carnell Donaldson, Pro Se

Jillian M. Jewell, Linda Julin McNamara, Michelle Thresher Taylor, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL,p Roberta Josephina Bodnar, U.S. Attorney’s Office — FLM, Ocala, FL, for Respondent-Appellee

Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Carnell Donaldson, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Donaldson filed his § 2241 petition in July 2013. In it, he raised four claims: (1) he was actually innocent of offenses under 21 U.S.C. §§ 848(a), (b), and 841(b)(1)(A); (2) he was actually innocent of an offense under 21 U:S.C. § 848(b); (3) his rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments were violated due to his conviction under § 848(a); and (4) his Fifth Amendment right to not be subject to double jeopardy was violated by his convictions under 21 U.S.C. §§ 848 and 846. The district court denied Donaldson’s § 2241 petition, pointing to his four earlier unsuccessful § 2255 petitions.

Ordinarily, collateral attacks on the validity of a federal conviction or sentence must be brought under § 2255. Sawyer v. Holder, 326 F.3d 1363, 1365 (11th Cir. 2003). However, under limited circumstances, the “saving clause” of § 2255(e) allows federal prisoners to challenge the validity of a federal conviction or sentence under § 2241 if an otherwise available remedy under § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” Id. We review de novo whether a *603prisoner may bring a § 2241 petition under the saving clause of § 2255(e). Williams v. Warden, Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 713 F.3d 1332, 1337 (11th Cir. 2013).

Since Donaldson filed his appeal, this Court issued its decision in McCarthan v. Director of Goodwill Industries-Suncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d 1076 (11th Cir. 2017) (en banc). In McCarthan, this Court held that “ordinary sentencing challenges” may not be brought under § 2241. Id. at 1091-94. Instead only claims that cannot be remedied at all by § 2255 could be brought under § 2241. Id. In other words, any “cognizable claim” that could have been brought under § 2255, even if circuit precedent or a procedural bar would have foreclosed the claim, cannot be brought under § 2241 in this circuit after McCarthan. Id. at 1086-90.

In light of McCarthan, the district court did not err in dismissing Donaldson’s petition. Because all four of the claims raised in Donaldson’s § 2241 petition could have been brought in a § 2255 motion to vacate, he has not met our circuit’s requirements for the § 2255(e) saving clause necessary to bring a § 2241 petition. As a result, the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider Donaldson’s § 2241 petition and we must affirm the denial of his petition.

AFFIRMED.