alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32

                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 Farmers & Merchants Bancorp (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
we, Kent A. Steinwert, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Stephen W.
Haley, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) under the Securities
Exchange act of 1934 and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18
U.S.C. $ 1350), 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 or
          78o(d)); and

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


March 9, 2007


/s/ Kent A. Steinwert
-------------------------
Kent A. Steinwert
President & Chief Executive Officer



/s/ Stephen W. Haley
------------------------
Stephen W. Haley
Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer


A  signed  original  of  this written statement required by Section 906 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.
#### Lucy Lane *versus*William Crombie *et al.*

In an action on the case for an injury to the plaintiff alleged to have been occasioned by the defendant’s negligence in driving on the highway, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, not only to show negligence and misconduct on the part of the defendant, but ordinary care and diligence on his own part.

This was an action on the case against the defendants, alleging negligence on the part of their servant, in driving a four-horse sleigh, in the highway in Waltham, by means whereof the plaintiff was run over and injured. The cause was tried before *Putnam*J. and a verdict was found in favor of the plaintiff. A motion was made to set aside the verdict, on the ground of misdirection, and also because it was a verdict against the weight of evidence.

*182
      *Nov. 4th.*

*Nov. 5th.*

*Mann,*for the defendants,

cited *Flower*v. Adam, 2 Taunt. 314; Selwyn’s N. P. (Wheaton’s edit.) 300; *Thompson*v. *Bridgewater,*7 Pick. 188; and the cases referred to by the Court.

*Richardson*and Park, for the plaintiff.

Per *Curiam.*

We consider the rule to be now well settled, that to enable a plaintiff to recover under such circumstances, he must not only show some negligence and misconduct on the part of the defendant, but ordinary care and diligence on his own part. *Butterfield*v. Forrester, 11 East, 61; *Harlow*v *Hummiston,*6 Cowen, 191; *Smith*v. *Smith,*2 Pick. 621.

The judge who tried the cause so instructed the jury ; but in the course of the charge, he further stated to the jury, that the burden of proof was upon the plaintiff to prove negligence m the defendants, that being the gist of the case; but that when the defendants relied upon the fact, that the plaintiff con ducted • herself carelessly, the burden of proof was upon the defendants to show that the plaintiff had not used ordinary care.

The latter part of this direction, we think, was incorrect in point of law, and that the burden of proof was upon the plaintiff to show that the accident was not occasioned by her own negligence, in placing herself in a hazardous position, without due precaution. In the actual state of the evidence, it is extremely probable that this direction made no difference in regard to the result; still, if the evidence was such that the jury might have decided the other way upon this point, without going decidedly against the weight of the evidence, or in other words, if the evidence was doubtful and balanced, such a direction may have had an influence to mislead the jury ; and therefore the Court are now all of opinion, that the verdict must be set aside and a new trial granted.
ilF F MILLE R 810-100823-00 1

rOMMITTES ; <:>

U ARME D ^!;RV;C•: S HANKin a MiMat n SFltC rCOMMITTE E O N IN1ELLIGENC E

KANKIN Q MIMHC n COMMITTE E O. N VETtiRANS ' APfAIK S 

## Coiigrc^i s o f tf) c llnite b ^ta m il^ous c o f i%fpifstntatil)t s SlaSJit'tigtoit , D C 2051 5 Auuus i 18.201 0 3.Si;S;. W Mi.,,.- . !.- - ':,• - • - I',: . .•.:•.• . fiMi i Wi : ;i-.? j Bin . i- , F l :iJMi ^ • ifJSO : ^t>; - !^p^ ^ fttt{j://tuffmillttr.haU]b().oo u Tii d FroU ! 1-a8fr.36/-)01' ) The Honorabl e Raymond La i loo d Secretar y U S Depanmeni o f

Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse

y Avenue , S E Washington . D

C 2059 0 RE : Docke

t OST-2010-012 4 Dea r Sccreiar v LaHood ; •T J '>/ e n 

# li s c7 5 Th e Northwes t

Florid aRegiona

l Airpor t (VPS ) locate d i

n I'o n Walto n Beac h ha s recentl y filed a proposa l fo r agrant under th e Small Coniniunit

N Air Servic e Developmen t

Program . Th

e airpor t i s seekin g fundin

g assistanc e ib r

th e specifi c purpos e of

recruitin g additional air

carrier servic e an d diversifyin g publi c transportatio n option s througi i alow-cos i carrie r tha i i s proposin g non stop servic e t

o it s Denver . Colorad o hub . A s yo u are aware , viabl e ai r

transportatio n i s criticall y important t o th e economi c wel

l being o f a community . Give

n th e tragi c impac t

o f Deepwater

Horizo n oi l spil l an d overal l dowTiturns i n touiism . ther

e i s asignificant

strategi c importanc e i

n developin g ne w market s fo r communitie s alon g tli e Gul f Coast , especiall y in communitie s tha t do no t hav e alow-cos t

carrier . Northwes t Florid aRegiona

l Airjior t i s the mos t

logica l locatio n fo

r adistinctiv e ne w servic e an d inclusio n i n the Smal

l Communit

y Ai r Sen'ic e Developmen

t Progra mwoul d greatlv benefi

t ove r 2 millio n peopl e i n th e airport' s potential catchment area . Than k yo u fo r considerin g Northwes t

Florid aRegiona

l Airport' s application . Pleas e do no t hesitat e t o contac t m y olTic e i f 1 ca n provid e an\ ' furthe

r infonnation . Wit h war mpersona l regard.^. , I a

m

Membe r o f Congres s .TM/e e
#### John Beatson et al., Respondents, *v.*James W. Elwell et al., Appellants.

(Argued May 28, 1872;

decided June 4, 1872.)

Action to recover back advances on freight. In October, 1856, plaintiffs chartered of defendants the bark Satellite, then lying at Marseilles, for a voyage to Akyab and back to Europe for a cargo of rice, at a stipulated freight, payable on *679the delivery of the cargo, *“*less advances made to master at port of loading.” The charter had these words: *“*Gash, for ship’s ordinary disbursements, to be advanced the master by charterer’s agents at port of loading, free of interest or commission, but subject to insurance.”

The bark arrived at Akyab, and during the spring and summer of 1857 the charterer’s agents advanced to the master for his ordinary disbursements the money in question in this action. The bark sailed on her homeward voyage in August or September, 1857, and put into Calcutta, where the master, without authority from the plaintiffs, and without any necessity therefor, sold the whole of the then cargo of rice, and broke up the voyage. Plaintiffs’ agents at Calcutta filed a bill against the master, and obtained the proceeds of the rice sold.

*Held,*plaintiffs were entitled to recover the advances; that the acceptance of the proceeds of the sale did not affect this right.

*H. Qi Benedict*for the appellant.

*Aug. F. Smith*for the respondent.

Folgeb, J.,

reads opinion for affirmance.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javair Dhoneyelle GLADDEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6539

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 24, 2017

Decided: August 29, 2017

Javair Dhoneyelle Gladden, Appellant Pro Se. Terry Michael Meinecke, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carohna, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Javair Dhoneyelle Gladden seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

*663We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gladden has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Exhibit 32.1
 Certification
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Harris Stratex as of the dates and for the periods
expressed in the Report.
 Date: September 3, 2009
    /s/ Harald J. BraunName:
    Harald J. BraunTitle:
    President and Chief Executive Officer
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

0.1 0.12 0.14Concentration (parts per million)

Pechanga Temecula Lake Elsinore 

# DAILY 1

- HOUR OZONE MAXIMUM VALUES FOR SELECTED MONITORS

JANUARY 1, 2010

- JUNE 30, 2013

Source: US EPA's Air Quality Systems (AQS) database (September 24, 2013). All event records included.0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

0.1 0.12Concentration (parts per million)

Pechanga Temecula Lake Elsinore 

# DAILY 8

- HOUR OZONE MAXIMUM VALUES FOR SELECTED MONITORS

JANUARY 1, 2010

- JUNE 30, 2013

Source: US EPA's Air Quality Systems (AQS) database (September 24, 2013). All event records included.
#### CHRISTY, INC., Appellant v. BLACK & DECKER (U.S.), INC., Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., Appellees

2016-2499

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

September 7, 2017

Amelia A. Fogleman, GableGotwals, Tulsa, OK, for Appellant.

Jack S. Barufka,. Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, McLean, VA, for Appellees.

Before Dyk, Moore, and Taranto, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Per Curiam.

Upon consideration of the above-captioned appeal,

It Is Ordered That:

1) Appeal 2016-2499 is dismissed as moot.

2) No costs.
----

|                     | Tel: +36 1 235 3010, 235 3090 |  |
|---------------------|-------------------------------|--|
| Fax: +36 1 266 6438 |
| www.bdo.hu          |
|                |
|                |

|   |                   |                 |   |   |
|--------|------------------------|----------------------|--------|--------|
|   |                   |                 |   |
|   |                   |                 |   |
|   |                   |                 |   |
|   | /s/ Ferenc Baumgartner | /s/ Andras Nagy      |   |
|   | Ferenc Baumgartner     | Andras Nagy          |   |
|   | General Manager        | Registered Auditor   |   |
|   | BDO Forte Audit Ltd.   | BDO Forte Audit Ltd. |   |

----
H. R. 606 

One Hundred Fourteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the sixth day of January, two thousand and fifteen 

An Act 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude certain compensation 

received by public safety officers and their dependents from gross income. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Don’t Tax Our Fallen Public 

Safety Heroes Act’’. 

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY PUBLIC 

SAFETY OFFICERS AND THEIR DEPENDENTS. 

Subsection (a) of section 104 of the Internal Revenue Code 

of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph 

(4), by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5) and inserting 

‘‘; and’’, and by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new 

paragraph: 

‘‘(6) amounts received pursuant to— 

‘‘(A) section 1201 of the Omnibus Crime Control and 

Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796); or 

‘‘(B) a program established under the laws of any State 

which provides monetary compensation for surviving 

dependents of a public safety officer who has died as the 

direct and proximate result of a personal injury sustained 

in the line of duty, 

except that subparagraph (B) shall not apply to any amounts 

that would have been payable if death of the public safety 

officer had occurred other than as the direct and proximate 

result of a personal injury sustained in the line of duty.’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C SECTIONS 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTS OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wireless Xcessories Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report"), I
Ronald E. Badke, 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, to the best of my knowledge, that:

     (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 Company.


By /s/ Ronald E. Badke
   ----------------------
   Ronald E. Badke
   Chief Financial Officer
   November 14, 2007
### Adams, Kevin (OST) From: 

### Sent: To: 

### Subject:
June 20, 2013 Teriitavae Perez <t.perez@capitol.hawaii.gov> Friday, June 21, 2013 9:37 PM EAS (OST) Letter of Support for Mokulele Airlines

Dear Department ofTransportation, ''''"-,.. · .. •'''\ ...,,

........ \..,....) I am writing to support Mokulele Airlines 4year bid to link Honolulu and Waimea. Mokulele is the best candidate as they support lowerfares, frequent flight, and ease of booking. T1'1e region

### h~en growing while the drive to the nearest airports in Hilo and Kailua-Kana becomes increasingly challenging. It is importantwe have safe, stable and affordable service to Waimea/Kohala. Please select Mokulele Airlines to serve Waimea/Kohala for4 years. Thank you foryour consideration. Sincerely, Cindy Evans State House Representative District 7: North Kohala, South Kohala, North Kona

State Representative Cindy Evans Room 425, State Capitol Building TEl: 808.S86.8510, Hawai'i Direct Dial 974.4000ext. 6-8510# repevans@capitol.hawaii.gov

1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Todd GRAVES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-4099

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed October 18, 2017

Elizabethanne Claire Stevens, Esq., Jeannette Frazier Swent, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Bretta Pine, Scott Keith Wilson, Office of the Federal Public Defender, District of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant-Appellant

Before HARTZ, MATHESON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Per Curiam

This matter is before the court on the government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver contained in defendant Todd Graves’s plea agreement. Graves pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Pursuant to the plea agreement, he waived his right to appeal his conviction or sentence, provided his sentence was within the statutory maximum and not above the advisory guideline range determined by the district court to apply. Graves’s sentence was below the statutory maximum and within the advisory guidelines range. Nevertheless, he filed a notice of appeal.

The government filed a motion to enforce the plea agreement pursuant to *United States v. Hahn,*359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). In response, Graves’s counsel did not provide any reason why the appeal waiver should not be enforced. This court gave Graves an opportunity to file a pro se *835response to the motion to enforce, but he has not done so.

We have reviewed the motion and the record, and we conclude that Graves’s proposed appeal falls within the scope of the appeal waiver and that nothing in the record indicates that he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his appellate rights or that enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice. *See id.*at 1325 (describing factors this court considers to determine whether to enforce an appeal waiver).

Accordingly, we grant the motion to enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss the appeal.

*

 This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R, App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32,1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
#### Fred R. Goes, Respondent, *v.*Gifford Sales & Service, Inc., Appellant, Impleaded with Another, Defendant.

Argued October 18, 1943;

decided December 2, 1943.

*745
      *Francis T. Lynch, Milton G. Jacobs*and *William A. Jones*for appellant.

*Julius R. Lippman*and *Edward E. Lippman*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lottghran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thaoher, JJ. Lehman, Ch. J., dissents and votes to reverse and to dismiss the complaint.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6082

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HARRY JAMES WHITE, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:01- cr-00284-PJM; 8:06-cv-02984-PJM) Submitted: April 26, 2007 Decided: May 2, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harry James White, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Suzanne Skalla, Assistant United States Attorney, James Marton Trusty, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Harry James White, Jr. seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that White has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7040 

To extend the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 for 10 years. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 18, 2024 

Mr. LAWLER (for himself and Ms. DEAN of Pennsylvania) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To extend the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 for 10 

years. 

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 ‘‘Undetectable Firearms 

5 Reauthorization Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF THE UNDETECTABLE FIREARMS ACT 

7 OF 1988 FOR 10 YEARS. 

8 Section 2(f)(2) of the Undetectable Firearms Act of 

9 1988 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended by striking ‘‘35’’ 

10 and inserting ‘‘45’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-20448

____________

Petrobras America, Incorporated, 

Plaintiff—Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

versus

Samsung Heavy Industries Company, Limited, 

Defendant—Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:19-CV-1410

______________________________

Before Jones, Smith, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

We have carefully considered this appeal in light of the briefs, the 

record, and oral argument. Having done so we find no error that would affect 

the judgment of the district court. We therefore affirm essentially for the 

reasons stated in the district court’s opinion. 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 7, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-20448 Document: 132-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/07/2024