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

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of American Wagering, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended April 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I certify as of the date hereof, solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, to my knowledge, that:

 

(1)           the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

 

A signed original of this written statement, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 
|                                 |   |                                                                  |
|--------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:  May 11,   2011 |   | /s/   Victor J. Salerno                                               |
|                                 |   | Victor   J. Salerno                                                   |
|                                 |   | President,   Chief Executive Officer, and                             |
|                                 |   | Chairman   of the Board of Directors    (Principal Executive Officer) |
|                                 |   |                                                                  |
| Date:  May 11,   2011 |   | /s/   Robert Kocienski                                                |
|                                 |   | Robert   Kocienski                                                    |
|                                 |   | Chief   Operating Officer, and                                        |
|                                 |   | Principal   Financial Officer    (Principal Financial Officer)        |

 

----
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications

  I, Michelle Gill, certify that:

  1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A and all reports on Form 10-D
     required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report
     on Form 10-K/A of GSAA Home Equity Trust 2006-17 (the "Exchange Act
     periodic reports");

  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
     whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other
     information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
     covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic
     reports;

  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required
     in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
     disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have
     fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all
     material respects; and

  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
     criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation
     reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
     asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in
     accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
     13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report,
     except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances
     of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in
     this report on Form 10-K/A.

     In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
     information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
     Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP as Servicer, GreenPoint Mortgage
     Funding, Inc. as Servicer, IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. as Servicer, SunTrust
     Mortgage, Inc. as Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Master Servicer
     and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Securities Administrator.

     Dated:  June 30, 2008

     /s/ Michelle Gill
     Michelle Gill, Vice President
     (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
#### IN RE: Adina ZAHARESCU, Debtor. Satish Shetty, Appellant, v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company; Ameriquest Mortgage Securities, Inc., Appellees.

No. 14-55398

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*824Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 24, 2017

Satish Shetty, Pro Se

Kalley R. Aman, Attorney, Brian T. Harvey, Esquire, Attorney, Pooya E. Sohi, Attorney, Buchalter Nemer PLC, Los An-geles, CA, for Appellees

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. 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 **

Satish Shetty appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing claims against appellees in Shett/s adversary proceeding. We review de novo our own jurisdiction and whether a bankruptcy court’s decision is final. *Silver Sage Partners, Ltd. v. City of Desert Hot Springs ( In re City of Desert Hot Springs),*339 F.3d 782, 787 (9th Cir. 2003). We dismiss.

This court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because “the bankruptcy court’s order did not dispose of all of the issues in the adversary proceeding” or “direct entry of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) which applies to adversary proceedings in bankruptcy by virtue of Bankruptcy Rule 7054.” *Walther v. King City Transit Mix, Inc. (In re King City Transit Mix, Inc.),*738 F.2d 1065, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 1984) (appellate jurisdiction in bankruptcy extends only to matters appealable to the district court as of right).

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### In the Matter of Thomas Steel, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Appellant, against Flushing Hospital and Dispensary et al., Respondents.

Argued June 8, 1943;

decided June 18, 1943.

*880
      *George Kent Weldon*for appellant.

*John Holley Clark, Jr.,*and *E. Crosby Kindleberger*for respondents.

Order affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

45 CFR Ch. VII

Semiannual Agenda of Regulations

AGENCY: Commission on Civil Right s.

ACTI O N: Se miannu al reg ulatory agenda.

SUMMARY: This ag end a announces the regulations the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights will have under development during the 6-month period following public ation of the agenda. The purpose for publishing this agenda is to give notice of any regulatory activi ty by the Commission in order to allow the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. Therefore, this agenda announces the revisions that will update Commission regulations, specifica lly 45 CFR 701, 702, 703, 705, and 706.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fo r fu rther info rmation on any items in the agenda, contact David P. Blackwood, General Counsel, U.S. Commiss ion on Civil Rights, Suite 620, 624 Ninth Street NW., Washington, DC 20425, (202) 376-7622, TDD (202) 376-8116.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accord an ce with Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review” and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S. C. section 605); executiv e agencies are required to publish a semiannual regulatory agenda in the Federal Register

. The Commission does not believe this rule will impose compliance costs or reporting burdens on the public or hav e a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

NAME: David P. Blackwood, General Counsel.The 1 Regulatory Agendas

Commission on Civil Rights - Long-term Action

Title Regulation Identifier Number Commission on Civil Rights--Update and Revision 3035-AA02

Commission on Civil Rights ( CCR ) RIN: 3035-AA02

View Related Documents

Title: Commission on Civil Rights--Update and Revision Abstract: The regulation updates and revises most of the Commission's current regulations, specifically 45 CFR 701, 702, 703, 705, and 706. 45 CFR 701 identifies the organization and functions of the Commission. 45 CFR 702 specifies the rules on hearings, reports, and meetings of the Commission. 45 CFR 703 identifies the operation and functions of State Advisory Committees. 45 CFR 705 identifies the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974. 45 CFR 706 identifies the ethical and other conduct and responsibilities of employees.

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Long-term Action Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No CFR Citation: 45 CFR 701 to 703; 45 CFR 705 to 706 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations )

Legal Authority: 42 USC 1975 to 1975f; 5 USC 552(a); 5 USC 552(b) Legal Deadline: None

Timetable:
Action Date FR Cite
NPRM 00/00/0000

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No Federalism: No RIN Information URL: www.regulations.gov Agency Contact: David P. Blackwood General Counsel Commission on Civil Rights Office of the General Counsel Suite 620 624 Ninth Street NW. Washington , DC 20425 Phone: 202 376-7622 TDD Phone: 202 376-8116 FAX: 202 376-1163 E-Mail: dblackwood@usccr.gov
#### GUY JAMES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee Cross-Appellant, v. TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant-Appellant Cross-Appellee.

No. 80-1322.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Unit A

July 8, 1981.

Locke, Purnell, Boren, Laney & Neely, John L. Estes, Wm. Andrew Barr, Thomas W. Hughes, Dallas, Tex., for defendant-appellant, cross-appellee.

Andress, Woodgate & Lodewick, William Andress, Jr., Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee, cross-appellant.

ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING

(Opinion May 8, 1981, 5 Cir. 1981, 644 F.2d 525)

Before CHARLES CLARK and GEE, Circuit Judges, and SPEARS,* District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Both parties petition this Court for a rehearing. Trinity Industries, Inc. raises, for the first time, the Uniform Commercial Code as a bar to recovery of the “time/price differential” of steel awarded to James as damages. Generally, an appellate court does not consider issues that are first presented in an application for rehearing. *See, e. g., United States v. Richards,*646 F.2d 962, 963 (5th Cir. 1981); *Moore v. United States,*598 F.2d 439, 441 (5th Cir. 1979). However, during oral argument this Court inquired as to the possible application of the UCC to this case, so assuming , that the issue is properly before us, we construe the UCC sections relied *94on by Trinity to authorize the recovery of such consequential damages. *See*Tex.Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 2.715(b) (Vernon 1968). The remaining points of error raised by both parties in their respective motions for rehearing have been thoroughly reconsidered, and are rejected.

Upon review of the opinion, however, the Court, sua sponte, concludes that the award made therein of prejudgment interest on the $102,162.43 amount of liquidated damages is erroneous. The interest period was inadvertently terminated by the district court, and subsequently by this court, as of April 6,1976, the date of settlement (see *Guy James Construction Co. v. Trinity Industries, Inc.,*644 F.2d 525, 532 n.3, 534 (5th Cir. 1981), rather than the date of judgment. The opinion is modified, therefore, to reflect an award of interest on $102,162.43 at six percent per annum to the date of judgment, January 31, 1980, as follows:

> $102,162.43 at 6% for year 1 = $ 6,129.75

> $108,292.17 at 6% for year 2 = 6,497.53

> $114,789.70 at 6% for year 3 = 6,887.38

> $121,677.08 at 6% for year 4 = 7,300.62

> $128,977.70 at 6%'for year 5 = 7,738.66

> $136,716.36. at 6% for year 6 = 8,202.98

> $144,919.34 at 6% for 77 days = 1,833.39

> Total = - $ 44,590.31

Except as modified herein, both petitions for rehearing are DENIED.

*

 District Judge of the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation.
---

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

I, Maria Peralta, hereby 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 Annual Report on Form 10- K/A
        of Okana Ventures, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010 (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 Okana Ventures, Inc.                                                                        

Dated: June
  28, 2011



| | /s/Maria Peralta                                       
| | -------------------------------------------------------
| | Maria Peralta                                          
| | Chief Executive Officer Chief Financial
      Officer, 
| | Treasurer, Secretary and Director                      
| | (Principal Executive Officer, Principal
      Financial
| | Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)              
| | Okana Ventures, Inc.                                   

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Okana Ventures,
Inc. and will be retained by Okana Ventures, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
IB 

Union Calendar No. 621 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6843 

[Report No. 118–736] 

To expand the boundaries of the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area to 

include Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 15, 2023 

Mr. SCALISE (for himself, Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana, Ms. LETLOW, Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana, and Mr. CARTER of Louisiana) 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 6843 RH

A BILL 

To expand the boundaries of the Atchafalaya National 

Heritage Area to include Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6843 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. ATCHAFALAYA NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA EX4 PANSION. 

5 Section 213 of the Atchafalaya National Heritage 

6 Area Act (subtitle B of title II of Public Law 109–338) 

7 is amended— 

8 (1) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘and Ascen9 sion Parish’’ and inserting ‘‘Ascension, and 

10 Lafourche Parish’’; and 

11 (2) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ‘‘14’’ and 

12 inserting ‘‘15’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 621 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6843 

[Report No. 118–736] 

A BILL 

To expand the boundaries of the Atchafalaya Naish, Louisiana. tional Heritage Area to include Lafourche ParNOVEMBER 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
#### Emanuel L. FINCH, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Det. Bradley GRAHAM; Det. Cynthia Brooks, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-35971

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 **

OCTOBER 5, 2017

Emanuel L. Finch, Sr., Airway Heights, WA, pro se.

Jean P. Homan, Tacoma City Attorney’s Office, Tacoma, WA, for Defendant-Appel-lee/

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 *

Washington .state prisoner Emanuel L. Finch, Sr. appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional claims arising from his arrest and interrogation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Hooper v. County of San Diego,*629 F.3d 1127, 1129 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Finch’s action on the basis that it was barred by *Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), because success on Finch’s claims would necessarily imply the 'invalidity of Finch’s conviction or sentence, and Finch failed to prove that either has been invalidated. *See*512 U.S. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (holding that, “in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid,” a plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been invalidated).

*557The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Finch’s motion for an extension to conduct discovery because Finch failed to show how allowing discovery would have precluded summary judgment. *See Tatum v. City and County of San Francisco,*441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006) (setting forth standard of review and requiring a movant to “identify by affidavit the specific facts that further discovery would reveal, and explain why those facts would preclude summary judgment”).

Finch’s request to submit the case on the briefs (Docket Entry No. 17) is granted. All other pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**Exhibit      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS      ADDED BY**

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

| 1. | The                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 contained in the Report fairly presents,                in                all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of the Company as of and for the period covered by the report. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                March 30, 2008 | By:   | /s/                Ronen Zadok                                                      |
|------------------------------------------|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                     |            | Ronen                Zadok                                                          |
|                                     |            | Chief                Financial Officer(Principal                Accounting Officer) |

----
#### Terrence Demetrius NESBITT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee. Terence Demetrius Nesbitt, Petitioner-Appellant, v. United States of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-11970, No. 16-13868 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(September 8, 2017)

Terrence Demetrius Nesbitt, Pro Se

Laura Thomas Rivero, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Lisa Tobin Rubio, Emily M. Smachetti, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Respondent-Appellee

Before HULL, WILSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Terrence Nesbitt appeals the dismissal of two *pro se*28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions to vacate sentences. Nesbitt argues that the district court erred by dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions to vacate as time-barred.

We review *de novo*the district court’s determination that a § 2255 motion to vacate is time-barred. *Drury v. United States,*507 F.3d 1295, 1296 (11th Cir. 2007).

There is a one-year statute of limitations for filing a § 2255 motion to vacate, which begins to run following the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final or the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. *Id.-, see also*28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1), (3). When a defendant does not appeal his conviction or sentence, the judgment of conviction becomes final when the time for seeking that review expires. *Murphy v. United States,*634 F.3d 1303, 1307 (11th Cir. 2011). A defendant has 14 days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A).

In March 2017, the Supreme Court held that the advisory sentencing guidelines are not subject to a vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause, such that the residual clause in the career-offender guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a), is not void for vagueness. *Beckles v. United States,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 886, 895, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017). As a result, our decision in *Matchett*that *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), does not extend to the advisory sentencing guidelines remains *646good law. *United States v. Matchett,*802 F.3d 1185, 1193-96 (11th Cir. 2015).

The district court did not err by dismissing Nesbitt’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions to vacate as time-barred because neither of Nesbitt’s motions was filed within the one year statute of limitations. Nesbitt filed his motions more than a year after the judgments became final and the right he was asserting in his motions had not been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.