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



CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO

SECTION
906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I,
Qingxi Meng, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | The
    Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of National Art Exchange, Inc. (the “Company”) for the
    annual period ended September 30, 2017 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
    15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (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.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date:
    February 8, 2018 | By: | /s/ Qingxi
    Meng                                                                        
|-------------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                           |     | Qingxi
    Meng                                                                            
|                           |     | Chief
        Executive Officer and President
        (Principal
        Executive Officer)



The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely 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) and is not being filed as part of a separate disclosure document.
```

[Federal Register: December 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 230)]
[Notices]               
[Page 74678]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01de10-30]                         

========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================

[[Page 74678]]

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

 
Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance; 
Office of Food for Peace Announcement of Request for Applications for 
Title II Non-Emergency Food Aid Programs; Notice

    Pursuant to the Food for Peace Act of 2008, notice is hereby given 
that the Request for Applications for Title II Non-Emergency Food Aid 
Programs will be available to interested parties for general viewing.
    For individuals who wish to review, the Request for Applications 
for Title II Non-Emergency Food Aid Programs will be available via the 
Food for Peace Web site: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/ffp/progpolicy.html on or about December 6, 2010. Interested 
parties can also receive a copy of the Request for Applications for 
Title II Non-Emergency Food Aid Programs by contacting the Office of 
Food for Peace, U.S. Agency for International Development, RRB 7.06-
152, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20523-7600.

Juli Majernik,
Grants Manager, Policy and Technical Division, Office of Food for 
Peace, Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-30195 Filed 11-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No. 19-985 (TJK)

ANTOINETTE P. JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al., 

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Antoinette Jones, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action

in April 2019 challenging the District of Columbia’s civil forfeiture practices. ECF No. 1. In 

accordance with Local Civil Rule 5.1, Plaintiff included her address in the caption on her 

complaint. LCvR 5.1(c)(1). On May 8, 2019, the Clerk of the Court noted that mail sent to the 

address Plaintiff listed was returned as undeliverable. ECF No. 5. 

On July 1, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, or, in the alternative, 

for summary judgment. ECF No. 11. Several days later, the Court issued an order advising 

Plaintiff of her obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules of this 

Court to respond to the motion. ECF No. 13 (“Fox Order”). The Court warned Plaintiff that if 

she did not respond to the motion by August 8, 2019, the Court could treat the motion as 

conceded. Id. The Clerk of the Court mailed copies of the motion and the Fox Order to the 

captioned address as well as a second address located on documents attached to the complaint; 

both mailings were returned as undeliverable. ECF Nos. 14, 15. 

Over two months later, Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition to Defendant’s motion or 

to request additional time to do so, and it seems evident she has failed to comply with her 
2

obligation under the local rules of this Court to keep her address of record updated. 

LCvR 5.1(c)(1) (“Notice of a change in address or telephone number of . . . a party not 

represented by an attorney must be filed within 14 days of the change.”). And there is no reason 

to believe she would receive any further orders issued by the Court because mail sent to her 

address of record has been returned as undeliverable on several occasions.

“The law is clear that ‘[d]istrict courts have inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte

for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or otherwise comply with a court order.’” Angellino v. Royal 

Family Al–Saud, 688 F.3d 771, 775 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (quoting Peterson v. Archstone Cmties. 

LLC, 637 F.3d 416, 418 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (citing LCvR 83.23)). Accordingly, the Court will, in a 

separate order, dismiss this case without prejudice for want of prosecution.

/s/ Timothy J. Kelly

TIMOTHY J. KELLY

United States District Judge

Date: October 16, 2019
#### Mariana NELSON, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, an Oregon Company; Countrywide Financial Corporation Group Long Term Disability Plan; Countrywide Financial Corp., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-55227

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted November 13, 2017 Pasadena, California

Filed December 18, 2017

Sarah Ball, Jack Bruce Winters, Jr., Esquire, Attorney, Winters *&*Associates, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Jacqueline J. Herring, Attorney, Warren Sebastian von Schleicher, Attorney, Smith, von Schleicher & Associates, Chicago, IL, Susan L. Oliver, Esquire, Attorney, White, Oliver & Amundson, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: KOZINSKI, HAWKINS, and PARKER,* Circuit Judges.

*

 The Honorable Barrington D, Parker, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

The District Court properly dismissed Nelson’s claims alleging violations of California Insurance Code § 10144. The text and the legislative history of the provision make clear that it bars discrimination in accessing insurance, but does not mandate the content of insurance coverage, Therefore, we agree that the policy does not violate § 10144 by providing different coverage for mental and physical disorders.

We also agree with the District Court that Standard did not violate ERISA. ERISA § 502 affords significant discretion to plan administrators. Determinations must be upheld unléss the administrator abused its discretion by reaching a decision that was (1) implausible (2) illogical, or (3) without support in the record. *Stephan v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am.,*697 F.3d 917, 929-30 (9th Cir. 2012). We see no abuse of discretion. The District Court correctly concluded that Standard’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of its policy was reasonable. The administrator’s decision was not implausible or illogical. The record on which the administrator relied included the results of extensive examinations by Nelson’s physicians, medical *445records from treating physicians, and the opinions of other physicians establishing that mental disability was the substantial component of Nelson’s illness. Standard was not required to assess the cause of Nelson’s depression because Standard’s plan explicitly addressed combined or concurrent causation. Thus, the state law doctrine of proximate cause was inapplicable. *Cf. Winters v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,*49 F.3d 550, 554 (9th Cir. 1995).

We have considered Nelson’s other arguments and conclude they are without merit.

AFFIRMED.

Nelson’s motion for certification (Dkt. Entry No. 35) is denied.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 10.38




First Amendment to


Purchase and Sale Agreement


And Joint Escrow Instructions




This First Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions (this “Amendment”), dated as of April 6, 2011, amends that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions dated as of March 10, 2011, by and between SPT-LAKE ELSINORE HOLDING CO., LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, as “Seller” therein, and CV COMMUNITIES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, as “Buyer” therein (the “Original Agreement”). Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings given them in the Original Agreement. To the extent of any inconsistency between the terms of the Original Agreement and the terms set forth in this Amendment, the terms set forth in this Amendment shall control.




Buyer and Seller hereby agree to amend the Original Agreement as follows:




1.           Buyer hereby unconditionally waives all Contingencies and has elected to proceed with the purchase of the Property (subject to the satisfaction of closing conditions for Buyer’s benefit as set forth in Section 10.a. of this Original Agreement).




2.           The Closing Date (scheduled for April 19, 2011 under the Original Agreement) is hereby extended so as to occur on or before May 10, 2011. In consideration of such extension, the Second Deposit shall be increased to the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00), and shall be deposited by Buyer into Escrow no later than Friday, April 8, 2011. Escrow Holder shall immediately release the First Deposit and the Second Deposit to Seller immediately upon Escrow Holder’s receipt of the Second Deposit.





3.           The Original Agreement, as amended hereby, shall otherwise remain unmodified and in full force and effect.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Purchase and Sale Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions as of the date first above written.







SELLER:
SPT-LAKE ELSINORE HOLDING CO., LLC, a Delaware limited liability company





By:
Shopoff Partners, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, sole member





By:
Shopoff General Partner, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, general partner





By:
Shopoff Properties Trust, Inc., a Maryland corporation, manager





By:
/s/ William A. ShopoffWilliam A. Shopoff,President and CEO





BUYER:
CV COMMUNITIES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company





By:
/s/ Mark BucklandMark Buckland, Authorized Representative




Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 726 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 726

     To prohibit Federal agencies from mandating the deployment of 
             vulnerabilities in data security technologies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 2015

 Ms. Lofgren (for herself, Mr. Massie, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Conyers, 
Mr. Poe of Texas, Ms. DelBene, Mr. Polis, Mr. O'Rourke, and Mr. Nadler) 
    introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Select 
 Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), and in addition to the 
Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined 
 by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
        fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To prohibit Federal agencies from mandating the deployment of 
             vulnerabilities in data security technologies.

    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 ``Secure Data Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON DATA SECURITY VULNERABILITY MANDATES.

    (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), no agency 
may mandate or request that a manufacturer, developer, or seller of 
covered products design or alter the security functions in its product 
or service to allow the surveillance of any user of such product or 
service, or to allow the physical search of such product, by any 
agency.
    (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to mandates 
authorized under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act 
(47 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
    (c) Definitions.--In this section--
            (1) the term ``agency'' has the meaning given the term in 
        section 3502 of title 44, United States Code; and
            (2) the term ``covered product'' means any computer 
        hardware, computer software, or electronic device that is made 
        available to the general public.
                                 <all>
```
**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 Quarterly Report of Celerity Systems, Inc. (the
“ Company ”)
      on
      Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the United
      States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “ Report ”),
      the
      undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, 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 knowledge:




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 operation of the Company.




Date:December 14, 2005
            **CELERITY
                SYSTEMS, INC.**By:/s/
                C. Thomas McMillenC.
                Thomas McMillenPresident,
                Chief Executive Officer, and Interim Chief
              Financial
                Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authentications, 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 Celerity Systems, Inc. and will be retained
      by Celerity Systems, Inc. and furnished to the United States Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its Staff upon request.
Exhibit 99.2


                            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 Quarterly Report of FFD Financial Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
R. Gerber, the Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
Company.




/s/ Robert R. Gerber
-----------------------------------------------------
Robert R. Gerber
Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
May 14, 2003


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to FFD Financial Corporation and will be retained by FFD Financial
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
#### Lamarr Barthell DINGLE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-7107

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 21, 2017

Decided: January 12, 2018

Lamarr Barthell Dingle, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit,

PER CURIAM:

Lamarr Barthell Dingle seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The district court’s order was entered on the docket on April 28, 2017. The notice of appeal was filed on August 15, 2017,* after the applicable 30-day appeal period had expired. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2107(a) (2012); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). However, contemporaneously with the filing of his notice of appeal, Dingle asserted in a letter to the district court that he did not timely receive notice of the entry of the April 28 order. We construe this letter as a motion to reopen the appeal period.' *See*Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)(A). Because the 30-day appeal period is jurisdictional, *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007), we remand the case for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to determine whether to reopen the time to file an appeal, pursuant to Rule 4(a)(6), The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further proceedings.

*REMANDED*

*

 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
1

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2729

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Missouri.

*

Phillip Ellis, * [UNPUBLISHED] 

* 

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 7, 2008

Filed: August 8, 2008

___________

Before MELLOY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Phillip Ellis appeals the 180-month prison sentence the district court1

 imposed

upon his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50

grams or more of cocaine base and “some amount” of powder cocaine, in violation of

21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846, and distribution of cocaine base, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), 2. He also consented to forfeiture of $70,257.96

pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California,
-2-

386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he seeks leave to withdraw, arguing the district court

erred in imposing too high a sentence. 

Ellis pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that contained a waiver of his

right to appeal his conviction and sentence. We will enforce the appeal waiver here.

The record reflects that Ellis understood and voluntarily accepted the terms of the plea

agreement, including the appeal waiver; the appeal falls within the scope of the

waiver; and we conclude that no injustice would result from enforcing it. See United

States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing

enforceability of appeal waiver); United States v. Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070,

1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case). 

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal beyond the scope of the

waiver. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

______________________________
(see attached scope of accreditation for field(s) of inspection, including type, range, methods or procedures)

Print Date: 03/28/2011 

This is to signify that

CERTIFICATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, LLC 

4257 BARGER DRIVE #134 

EUGENE, OREGON 97402 

Inspection Agency AA-732 

Type A (Third-Party) Inspection Body 

has met the requirements of the IAS Accreditation Criteria for Inspection Agencies (AC98), has demonstrated c

ISO/IEC Standard 17020, General criteria for the operation of various types of bodies performing inspection, aaccredited, commencing March 17, 2011, to provide inspection services in the approved scope of accreditation.  Patrick V. McCullen C. P. Ramani, P.E.  Vice President President 
Certification Services International, LLC AA-732 

Type A (Third-Party) Inspection Body 

 March 17, 2011  Commencement Date C. P. Ramani, P.E. 

President 

Print Date: 03/28/2011 Certification Services International, LLC 4257 Barger Dr. #134 Eugene, OR 97402 

FIELDS OF 

INSPECTIONS 

TYPE AND RANGE OF 

INSPECTIONS 

INSPECTION METH

AND PROCEDUR

Wood-based building products 

- Formaldehyde emissions 

In-plant California Code of Regulation, Sectio

Certification Services International LLEmission Certification Program, Rev11/26/10Quality Program Audit Work Sheet Q3/8/2011
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 Cienega Creek Holdings, Inc.
(the "Registrant") on Form 10-K for the period ending March 31, 2009, as filed
with the securities and exchange commission on the date hereof (the
"Annual Report"), I, Michael A. Klinicki, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive
Officer and chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, 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 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
     the Registrant.




Date: June 2, 2009              By:  /s/ Michael A. Klinicki
                                   Name: Michael A. Klinicki
                                   Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
                                         (Principal Executive Officer), and
                                          Chief Financial Officer
                                         (Principal Financial Officer)