alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Equicap, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31,
2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), the undersigned, Peter Wang, President and David Ming He, Chief
Financial Officer, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the
undersigned’s knowledge:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





/s/ Peter WangPeter
      WangPresidentPrincipal
      Executive OfficerFebruary
      10, 2010/s/ David Ming HeDavid
      Ming HeChief
      Financial OfficerPrincipal
      Financial OfficerFebruary
      10, 2010





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.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished with the Company’s Report pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date
hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.
#### Christopher Scott DANGIM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FNU LNU, USA LAW ENFORCEMENT; FNU LNU, Rio Rancho Police; FNU LNU, Sandoval County Sherriffs; FNU LNU, Docs and Mental Health; FNU Salazar, Officer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-2156

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed January 30, 2018

(D.C. No. 1:16-CV-00812-JB-SCY) (D. New Mexico)

Christopher Scott Dangim, Pro Se

Before HARTZ, HOLMES, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Harris L Hartz Circuit Judge

Christopher Scott Dangim appeals from the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his claims against the United States, the court’s dismissal without prejudice of his claims against state officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the court’s decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state-law claims.

We AFFIRM the judgment below. The district court bent over backwards to discern claims in Mr. Dangim’s pleadings and. patiently explained why the claims under federal law must fail. Mr. Dangim’s brief in this court points to no errors by the district court. In addition, the district court acted well within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims. We DENY Mr. Dangim’s motion for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis.*

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, 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.
#### David A. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STONEMOR PARTNERS, LP, Defendant-Appellee, a*nd*Paula Harris, RVP; Anita Deeb, Area Manager; Lauren Bailey, HR Compliance Manager; Gina Mack, Director Benefits & Administration, Defendants.

No. 17-1925

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 19, 2017

Decided: December 21, 2017

David A. Campbell, Appellant Pro Se,

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David Campbell seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his complaint for failure to allege facts sufficient to establish that venue was proper in the Eastern District of Virginia. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because the district court identified a deficiency that Campbell may remedy by filing an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Campbell seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. *See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc.,*807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir, 2015); *Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,*10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we deny Campbell’s motion to proceed in for-ma pauperis, dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Campbell to amend his complaint. *Goode,*807 F.3d at 630. 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 AND REMANDED*
Order entered June 6, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-11-01708-CV

HAL RACHAL, JR., Appellant

V.

LETKIEWICZ & FOSTER, Appellee

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR-09-2413-2

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s June 3, 2013 motion for an extension of time to file a reply 

brief. Appellant shall file his reply brief on or before July 3, 2013.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
#### COM. v. PHILLIPS, B.

465 WDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/05/2017

CP-30-CR-0000447-2012 (Greene)

Affirmed
CERTIFICATION                                                       Exhibit 31.2
Chief Financial Officer
I, Stephen K. Radusch, Chief Financial Officer certify that:

     1.  I have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report on Form  10-QSB of  Chadmoore
         Wireless Group, Inc;

     2.  Based on my knowledge, the 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 the report;

     3.  Based on my knowledge,  the financial  statements,  and other financial
         information  included in the  report,  fairly  present in all  material
         respects the financial  conditions,  the results of its  operations and
         cash flows of the issuer as of, and for,  the periods  presented in the
         report;

     4.  The  small  business  issuer's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are
         responsible for  establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and
         procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
         registrant and have:

         a.   Designed such  disclosure  controls and  procedures to ensure that
              material  information  relating to the  registrant,  including its
              consolidated subsidiaries,  is made known to them by others within
              those  entities,  particularly  during  the  period  in which  the
              periodic reports are being prepared;

         b.   Evaluated  the   effectiveness  of  the  registrant's   disclosure
              controls and  procedures  as of a date within 90 days prior to the
              filing date of the report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

         c.   Presented in the report their  conclusions about the effectiveness
              of  the  disclosure   controls  and  procedures   based  on  their
              evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

     5.  The  small  business  issuer's  other  certifying  officers  and I have
         disclosed,  based on our most recent evaluation,  to the small business
         issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the board or directors (or
         persons fulfilling the equivalent function):

         a.   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
              or operation of internal  controls or  financial  reporting  which
              could adversely  affect the issuer's  ability to record,  process,
              summarize and report financial data; and

         b.   Any fraud,  whether or not material,  that involves  management or
              other employees who have a significant  role in the small business
              issuer's internal controls or financial reporting; and


November 12, 2004

/s/  STEPHEN K. RADUSCH
------------------------
Stephen K. Radusch
Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 106 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  1st Session
H. J. RES. 106

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 13, 1997

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1998, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That section 106(3) of Public 
Law 105-46 is further amended by striking ``November 14, 1997'' and 
inserting 
in lieu thereof ``November 26, 1997'', and each provision amended by 
sections 122 and 123 of such public law shall be applied as if 
``November 26, 1997'' was substituted for ``October 23, 1997''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 13, 1997.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
IV

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 273

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the annual rate at which the

International Monetary Fund charges interest on loans should be comparable to the average annual rate of interest in financial markets

for loans of comparable maturity, adjusted for risk.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 7, 1998

Mr. ROYCE submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Banking and Financial Services

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the annual rate

at which the International Monetary Fund charges interest on loans should be comparable to the average annual

rate of interest in financial markets for loans of comparable maturity, adjusted for risk.

Whereas International Monetary Fund (IMF) structural adjustment loans are extended at subsidized rates, and are

equivalent to a transfer of wealth from taxpayers in the

United States and other countries to those countries accessing International Monetary Fund credit;

Whereas subsidized loans distort markets and create inefficiencies that impede economic development;
2

•HCON 273 IH

Whereas subsidized International Monetary Fund loans have

often proven to be ineffectual and even harmful as a

means of promoting economic development; and

Whereas market-based interest rates are determined by the

borrower’s creditworthiness, a factor ignored by the

International Monetary Fund: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the

3 annual rate at which the International Monetary Fund

4 charges interest on loans should be, at a minimum, com5 parable to the average annual rate of interest in financial

6 markets for loans of comparable maturity, adjusted for

7 risk.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 64 (Monday, April 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 19500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07034]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-715-000.
    Applicants: Dauphin Island Gathering Partners.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Filing 3-24-
2022 to be effective 3/24/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/24/22.
    Accession Number: 20220324-5103.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/5/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-724-000.
    Applicants: Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Tenaska 
Release eff 3-26-22 to be effective 3/26/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/29/22.
    Accession Number: 20220329-5028.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/11/22.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must 
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified 
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system 
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying 
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: March 29, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-07034 Filed 4-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                     [LETTERHEAD OF HUDDLESTON & CO. INC.]


                               LETTER OF CONSENT

     We hereby consent to the references to us under the heading "Oil and Gas
Reserves" in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of PetroCorp Incorporated for the
year ended December 31, 2001.

                                        HUDDLESTON & CO., INC.


                                        By:  /s/ B. P. HUDDLESTON
                                           -------------------------
                                           B. P. Huddleston, P.E.
                                           Chairman

Houston, Texas
March 26, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 113 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.J. Res.113

                       One Hundred Fifth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the twenty-seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-
                                  eight

                            Joint Resolution

 
  Approving the location of a Martin Luther King, Jr., Memorial in the 
                            Nation's Capital.

Whereas section 508 of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management 
  Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1003 note; 110 Stat. 4157) authorized the 
  Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity to establish a memorial on Federal land in 
  the District of Columbia to honor Martin Luther King, Jr.;

Whereas section 6(a) of the Commemorative Works Act (40 U.S.C. 1006(a)) 
  provides that the location of a commemorative work in the area 
  described as Area I (within the meaning of the Act) shall be deemed 
  not authorized unless approved by law not later than 150 days after 
  notification to Congress that the Secretary of the Interior 
  recommends location of the commemorative work in Area I; and

Whereas the Secretary of the Interior has notified Congress of the 
  recommendation of the Secretary that the memorial be located in Area 
  I: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., MEMORIAL.

    The location of the commemorative work to honor Martin Luther King, 
Jr., authorized by section 508 of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands 
Management Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1003 note; 110 Stat. 4157), within 
Area I is approved under section 6(a) of the Commemorative Works Act 
(40 U.S.C. 1006(a)).

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the

limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 28, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40954

Summary Calendar

RAMON ORNELAS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

WARDEN DAVID JUSTICE,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:05-CV-49

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

Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Petitioner-Appellant Ramon Ornelas, federal prisoner # 84960-

079, pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50 grams

or more of methamphetamine and was sentenced to 262 months of

imprisonment. Ornelas appeals the district court’s denial of his 28

U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the Bureau of Prisons’s (BOP)

method of calculating his good time credit under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b).

Ornelas contends that the BOP has incorrectly interpreted § 3624(b)

and that he is entitled to earn 54 days of good time credit per year,

based on his term of imprisonment. 
2

As Ornelas is proceeding under § 2241, he is not required to

obtain a certificate of appealability (COA) to proceed on appeal.

See Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001). In

Sample v. Morrison, 406 F.3d 310, 312 (5th Cir. 2005), we held that

we lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the appeal of a prisoner’s

§ 2241 petition that, like Ornelas’s, alleges that the BOP was

miscalculating his good time credit under § 3624(b). We concluded

that the prisoner, who was not yet eligible for release from prison,

did not establish that he would sustain immediate injury that could

be redressed by the relief requested. As such, his petition was not

ripe for review. Id.

Ornelas requests the same form of relief as the petitioner in

Sample. Irrespective of whether Ornelas’s sentence is computed on

the basis of the BOP’s interpretation of § 3624(b) or on the basis of

his own interpretation, Ornelas is not entitled to release from

prison. Thus, like the petitioner in Sample, Ornelas’s petition is

not ripe for review. Accordingly, we dismiss for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction. Moreover, even if Ornelas’s request for relief

were not premature, his argument would be foreclosed by Moreland v.

Federal Bureau of Prisons, 431 F.3d 180, 186 (5th Cir. 2005), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 1906 (2006). 

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 119 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 119

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
                        limit campaign spending.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 14, 1998

Mr. DeLay introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
                        limit campaign spending.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --

    ``Section 1. To promote the fair and effective functioning of the 
democratic process, Congress, with respect to elections for Federal 
office, and States, for all other elections, including initiatives and 
referenda, may adopt reasonable regulations of funds expended, 
including contributions, to influence the outcome of elections, 
provided that such regulations do not impair the right of the public to 
a full and free discussion of all issues and do not prevent any 
candidate for elected office from amassing the resources necessary for 
effective advocacy.
    ``Section 2. Such governments may reasonably defined which 
expenditures are deemed to be for the purpose of influencing elections, 
so long as such definition does not interfere with the right of the 
people fully to debate issues.
    ``Section 3. No regulation adopted under this authority may 
regulate the content of any expression or communication.''.
                                 <all>
```