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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Saratoga Investment Corp. on
Form 10-K (the "Report") for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Christian
L. Oberbeck, the Chief Executive Officer and President and Richard A. Petrocelli, the Chief Financial Officer, Chief Compliance Officer and Secretary of Saratoga Investment
Corp., each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

Date:
May 23, 2011

/s/ Christian L. Oberbeck Name: Christian L. Oberbeck
Chief Executive Officer and President/s/ Richard A. Petrocelli Name: Richard A. Petrocelli
Chief Financial Officer, Chief Compliance Officer and Secretary


---



QuickLinks
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 Barings BDC, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2021, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jonathan Bock, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ JONATHAN BOCKJonathan BockChief Financial OfficerFebruary 23, 2022
#### THINK COMPUTER CORPORATION, Appellant v. SQUARE, INC., Appellee

2016-1818

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 24, 2017

Isaac Philip Rabicoff, Rabieoff Law LLC, Chicago, IL, argued for appellant.

Stefani E. Shanberg, Morrison *&*Foer-ster LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by Robin L. Brewer, Eugene Marder.

(Newman, O’Malley, and Stoll, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                 Exhibit 11.01

11.01     COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE (IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER
          SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                          THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                               MARCH 31,
                                          ------------------
                                            1997       1996
                                          -------    -------
<S>                                       <C>        <C>

Net Income (loss)                          $(2,976)   $  387
                                           =======    ======
Weighted average outstanding shares          7,559     6,431
Common stock equivalents                       --        -- 
Common stock equivalents accounted for
 under Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 83                  392
                                           -------    ------
                                             7,810     6,823
                                           =======    ======
 
                                           $  (.39)   $  .06
                                           =======    ======
</TABLE>
May 19 , 2015



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF JAMILEH MERRIKH AND DAVID HOSSIEN MERRIKH , Appellant

NO. 14

- 14

- 00024

- CV

________________________________ This court today heard a motion for rehearing filed by appellant David Merrikh and a motion for rehearing filed by appellants Noorollah Merrikh and Zarine Motlagh. We order the motion s be denied , and that the court’s former judgment of March 17, 2015 be vacated, set aside, and annulled. We further order this co urt’s opinion of March 17, 2015, withdrawn. This cause, two appeals, one by David Merrikh and one by Noorollah Merrikh and Zarine Motlagh, from the judgment in favor of Jamileh Merrikh, signed October 11, 2013, was heard on the transcript of the record. With regard to David Merrikh’s appeal, we have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. Therefore, as it pertains to David Merrikh, we order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED

. With regard to Noorollah Merrikh and Zarine Motlagh’s app eal, we have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. Therefore, as it pertains to Noorollah Merrikh and Zarine Motlagh, we order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED

. We order David Merrikh, Noorollah Merrikh, and Zarine Motlagh, joint ly and severally, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
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
Loreto Resources Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, Luis F. Saenz, Chief Executive 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





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.





/s/
      Luis F. SaenzName:
                  Luis
      F. SaenzTitle:
                  Chief
      Executive OfficerDate:
                  April
      15, 2010
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 13759]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05081]



[[Page 13759]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--AI Infrastructure Alliance, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 5, 2022, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), AI Infrastructure Alliance, 
Inc. (``AIIA'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the 
identities of the parties to the venture and (2) the nature and 
objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose 
of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties 
to the venture are: DataTalks.Club, Berlin, GERMANY; Allegro Systems 
Ltd., Tel-Aviv, ISRAEL; Neuro Inc., San Francisco, CA; Pachyderm, Inc., 
San Francisco, CA; Arize AI, Mill Valley, CA.; TerminusDB, Dublin, 
IRELAND; Data Science Salon, Miami, FL; MLOps Community, Flagstaff, AZ; 
Molecula, Austin, TX; Activeloop, Mountain View, CA; Superwise AI LTD, 
Tel Aviv, ISRAEL; Artefact, Paris, FRANCE; and LGN Innovations Inc., 
St. Asaph, IRELAND. The general area of AIIA's planned activity is to 
support and promote the development of standards in the fields of 
artificial intelligence and machine learning.

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-05081 Filed 3-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
October 21, 2015

Mr. Chuck Snow

Pilot

Earl Dudley, Inc.

5253 First Avenue North

Birmingham, AL 35121

Dear Mr. Snow:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

§§ 61.3, 61.113(a)(b), 61.133(a), 91.7(a), 91.119, 91.151(a), and 91.401–91.417 of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your request and 

what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We received your June 15, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Earl Dudley, Inc. filed in 

Docket No. FAA−2015−3051, but we are unable to process your request any further. Your 

petition 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 reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

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

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

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 receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4
#### Bradley SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nester LOPEZ; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-16838

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 21, 2017

Bradley Smith, Pro Se

Krystal Joy Rosse, Attorney, USLV— Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USRE—Office of the US Attorney-Reno, Reno, NV, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Bradley Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action under *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging claims arising from a workplace dispute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). *614*Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Smith’s Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim because Smith failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was treated differently from other similarly situated individuals. *See Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech,*528 U.S. 562, 564, 120 S.Ct. 1073, 145 L.Ed.2d 1060 (2000) (elements of “class of one” equal protection claim).

The district court properly dismissed Smith’s First Amendment retaliation claim because Smith failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he attempted to engage in protected speech. *See Coszalter v. City of Salem,*320 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2003) (to establish a First Amendment retaliation claim, plaintiff must show he spoke on a matter of public concern; speech that concerns individual personnel disputes and grievances is generally not of public concern); *see also Blaisdell v. Frappiea,*729 F.3d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[Ajssocia-tional rights only extend to groups engaged in expressive activities.”).

The district court properly dismissed Smith’s Ninth Amendment claim because the Ninth Amendment “has never been recognized as independently, securing any constitutional right, for purposes of pursuing a civil rights claim.” *Strandberg v. City of Helena,*791 F.2d 744, 748 (9th Cir. 1986).

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

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

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 27, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00386

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.A.T., A CHILD,

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016

- PA

- 01687

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The appellant ’ s motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. Time is

extended to August 14, 2017.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 27th day of July, 2017

.

___________________________________ Luz Estrada

Chief Deputy Clerk
#### Channavjjala M. PRASAD, Petitioner v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent

2016-2267

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 15, 2017

E. John Steren, Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., Washington, DC, argued for petitioner.

Michael Anthony Rodriguez, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by Benjamin C. Mizer, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Allison Kidd-miller.

(Newman, Clevenger, and Wallach, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
**Exhibit 31**

 

**WAMU ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORP.**

** **

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

 

I, Thomas G. Lehmann, certify that:

 

1.         I have reviewed this report on Form 10–K and all reports on Form 10–D required to be filed in respect of theperiod covered by this report on Form 10–K of WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-AR16 Trust (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 ofa  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 Form10–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 agreement(s) in all material respects; and

 

5.         All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their relatedattestation 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 anexhibit 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. 

 

Date:  March 15, 2007

 

  /s/ Thomas G. Lehmann_________Name:  Thomas G. LehmannTitle:    President
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Greenhaven Continuous Commodity Index Fund;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.
    
    I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial
reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and
have:
     5.
    
    I have disclosed, based on my 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 15, 2010
    
    /s/ Thomas Fernandes

Thomas FernandesPrincipal Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices 

# Order

July 6, 2021

161932

- 3 (70)

In re Application of DTE ELECTRIC COMPANY

to Increase Rates.

_________________________________________

RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER GROUP,

Appellant,

v SC: 161932

COA: 344811

MPSC: 00

- 018255

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE

COMMISSION and MICHIGAN CABLE

TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION,

Appellees,

and

DTE ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Petitioner

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

In re Appl ication of CONSUMERS ENERGY

COMPANY to Increase Rates.

_________________________________________

RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER GROUP,

Appellant,

v SC: 161933

COA: 344821

MPSC: 00

- 018322

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE

COMMISSION and MICHIGAN CABLE

TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION,

Appellees,

and

CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY,

Petitioner

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 6, 2021

a0628 2

Clerk On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s March 30,

2021 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that

reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G).
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Brian Roberts, the Chief Executive Officer of Ruby Creek Resources Inc. (the "Company"), and Ian Foreman, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his or her knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended August 31, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K, as amended, fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: November 25, 2008

By: "Brian Roberts"      Brian Roberts
      President, Chief Executive Officer, Principal Executive Officer and a director

By: "Ian Foreman"      Ian Foreman
      Secretary, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version 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.

__________
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

__________________________ MARCO ANTONIO GALLO-RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

__________________________ 2012-5136

__________________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in case no. 11-CV-0782, Judge George W. Miller.

__________________________ ON MOTION

__________________________ O R D E R Marco Antonio Gallo-Rodriguez moves unopposed for an extension of time, until December 24, 2012, to file his informal reply brief. Gallo-R odriguez also moves for leave to file a corrected page 6 of his informal reply brief.In his motion to file a corrected page 6, GalloRodriquez states that he was including a copy of page 6 showing the excerpt which should be stricken as well as a Case: 12-5136 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 01/17/2013M ARCO G ALLO -R ODRIGUEZ V

. US 2
copy of page 6 with the text which should replace that stricken. It appears, howeve r, that Gallo-Rodriguez failed to attach the revised page 6. Upon consideration thereof,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT : 1) The motion for an extension of time is granted. Gallo-Rodriguez’s informal reply brief submitted on December 17, 2012 is accepted for filing. 2) The motion to file a corrected informal reply brief filed on December 19, 2012 is denied without prejudice to refiling. Gallo-Rodriguez may file a corrected informal reply brief within 30 days of th e date of this order. Any corrected informal reply brief filed must include all pages.
F OR T HE C OURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk s25 Case: 12-5136 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 01/17/2013
#### Clarence BRANCH, Appellant v. ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., Appellees

No. 17-5169

September Term, 2017

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed On: November 13, 2017

Clarence Branch, Pro Se

R. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney’s Office, (USA) Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees

BEFORE: Henderson and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 84(3). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s May 23, 2017 order be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed appellant’s complaint without prejudice because the complaint failed to satisfy the minimal pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (Rule 8(a)(2) requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after, resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.