alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

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

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

 

The undersigned, Robert S. Herlin, President and ChiefExecutive Officer of Evolution Petroleum Corporation (the “Company”), certifiesin connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission ofthe Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31,2008 (the “Report”) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to hisknowledge, that:

 

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed thiscertification as of the 17th day of February, 2009.

 
|   | /s/ ROBERT S. HERLIN                  |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | Robert S. Herlin                      |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Evolution Petroleum Corporation andwill be retained by Evolution Petroleum Corporation and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  The foregoing certificate is being furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to this Form 10-Qand shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-Q.

----
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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

July 11, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40056

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN CARLOS RESENDEZ-HERNANDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 1:06-CR-751

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

Before JOLLY, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Juan Carlos

Resendez-Hernandez raises arguments that are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and

not a separate criminal offense. The appellant’s motion for

summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
No. 65,

Orig.

#### Texas *v.*New Mexico.

[For earlier order herein, see, *e. g.,*565 U. S. 809.]

Motion of the River Master for fees and reimbursement of expenses granted, and the River Master is awarded a total of $6,888.59 for the period July 1, 2011, through June 80, 2012, to be paid equally by the parties.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Bradley Allen SPARKMAN, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-20008 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 9, 2018

Jessica Carol Akins, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Brittany Carroll Lacayo, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Bradley Allen Sparkman appeals his guilty plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and his resulting 120-month sentence. Sparkman now argues that his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary because it was induced by counsel’s ineffective assistance, specifically, incorrect advice and misleading promises about the sentence he would receive. He also complains that the district court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on his pro se request to -withdraw his plea.

This court generally will not consider the merits of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal. *United States v. Isgar,*739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). A 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion “is the preferred method” for raising such a claim. *United States v. Bishop,*629 F.3d 462, 469 (5th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Contrary to Sparkman’s assertion, the instant case is not one of the “rare cases” warranting review on direct appeal as the ineffective assistance claim was not raised and developed in a post-trial motion to the district court. *See Isgar,*739 F.3d at 841; *United States v. Stevens,*487 F.3d 232, 245 (5th Cir. 2007).

Additionally, although Sparkman made several pro se statements indicating that he wished to withdraw his plea based on his alleged misunderstanding of the plea agreement and sentencing exposure, Sparkman was represented by counsel, was not entitled to hybrid representation, and was not entitled to file pro se motions. *Cf. United States v. Ogbonna,*184 F.3d 447, 449 n.1 (5th Cir. 1999) (discussing pro se briefs on appeal when an appellant is represented by counsel). The court responded to his numerous complaints by appointing new counsel, and none of the multiple attorneys who represented Spark-man throughout the district court proceedings thought it reasonable to file a formal motion to withdraw the plea. Appellate counsel’s newly raised complaint about the *200need for an evidentiary hearing is inextricably intertwined with the assertion that Sparkman’s plea was involuntary due to trial counsel’s alleged erroneous advice, which question is best left to § 2255 relief. *See Isgar,*739 F.3d at 841; *Bishop,*629 F.3d at 469.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED without prejudice to Sparkman’s right to raise his ineffective assistance, of counsel claims in a § 2255 motion.

*

 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.
No. 11-10315.

#### Fauncher *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. James Patrick BURKE, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-20307 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 16, 2018

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

James Patrick Burke, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent James Patrick Burke has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Burke has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Burke’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. *See United States v. Isgar,*739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Burke’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2. Burke’s motion for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED.

*

 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,
#### Gregory C. BONTEMPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. K. PENATE, Correctional Officer at Lancaster State Prison, in his/her individual capacity, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-56886

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 21, 2017

Gregory C. Bontemps, Pro Se

Cassandra Jean Shryock, Esquire, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Gregory C. Bontemps, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the filing fee after revoking his in forma pauperis status (“IFP”) on the ground that Bon-temps has “three strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C, § 1291. We review de novo. *Washington v. L.A. Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t,*833 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The district court properly revoked Bon-temps’ IFP status because at least three of Bontemps’ prior cases qualified as “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and Bon-temps did not allege facts demonstrating that he faced imminent danger at the time he filed his complaint. *See Knapp v. Hogan,*738 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) (defining when a case is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and can be considered a strike); *Andrews v. Cervantes,*493 F.3d 1047, 1055-57 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing imminent danger exception); *see also Harris v. Mangum,*863 F.3d 1133, 1143 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[W]hen (1) a district court dismisses a complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim, (2) the court grants leave to amend, and (3) the plaintiff then fails to file an amended complaint, the dismissal counts as a strike under § 1915(g).”).

Bontemps’ motion seeking appointment of counsel, attached to his opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         693,163
<SECURITIES>                                 6,638,557
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,312
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,333,032
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,341,504
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,061
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,341,504
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,323
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 68,922
<INCOME-TAX>                                    23,501
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             45,421
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    45,421
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02
        

</TABLE>
#### L. RUTHER, Appellant v. Barry GASH and Common Collect LLC, Appellees

No. 17-7128

September Term, 2017

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed On: November 17, 2017

L. Ruther, Pro Se

BEFORE: Kavanaugh and Millett, 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 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s August 14, 2017 order be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing appellant’s case without prejudice on the ground that the complaint did not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). See Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Appellant’s complaint did not contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction or of the claim showing that he is entitled to relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

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.
Exhibit 32.1


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

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), I, Ashley C.
Andersen, President and Chief Executive Officer of Trudy Corporation do hereby
certify, to the best of my knowledge that:

     1)   The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
          June 30, 2006 being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
          (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.

This Certification accompanies this Form 10-QSB as an exhibit, but shall not be
deemed as having been filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 or as a separate disclosure document of the Company or the
certifying officer.


                                             /s/ ASHLEY C. ANDERSEN
                                             -----------------------------------
Date: August 17, 2006                        Ashley C. Andersen
                                             President, Chief Executive Officer,
                                             Acting Chief Financial Officer

                                       32
RE: Meeting tomorrow on NO2 monitoring

King, Heidi R. to: Lydia Wegman 01/19/2010 10:09 AM

Cc: Richard Wayland, Nealson Watkins, Scott Jenkins, Karen Martin, 

Tricia Crabtree

I'm on another call, but available at 10:30. Would that work?

-----Original Message-----

From: Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 12:17 PM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc: Wayland.Richard@epamail.epa.gov; Nealson Watkins; Scott Jenkins;

Karen Martin; Tricia Crabtree

Subject: Meeting tomorrow on NO2 monitoring

Heidi,

I hope you're feeling better and are having a good weekend.

Following the management discussion today, we'd like to meet with you

tomorrow, rather than wait until Wednesday, to discuss the issue of how

many near-road monitors we will require in the NO2 rule. Do you have

time to talk tomorrow after 10 AM? Please let me know.

Lydia
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Peter Limeri, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of PRG-Schultz International, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.       May 14, 2007 By: /s/ Peter Limeri       Peter Limeri      *Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer*      *(Principal Financial Officer)*
Exhibit 10.1


 


VOTING AGREEMENT







Each of the undersigned directors of TCSB Bancorp, Inc. (“Company”) hereby agrees in his or her individual capacity as a shareholder to vote his or her shares of Company Common Stock that are registered in his or her personal name (and agrees to use his or her reasonable efforts to cause all additional shares of Company Common Stock owned jointly by him or her with any other person or by his or her spouse or over which he or she has voting influence or control to be voted) in favor of approval of the Agreement and Plan of Merger by and between Independent Bank Corporation (“Purchaser”) and Company, dated December 4, 2017 (the “Plan of Merger”).  In addition, each of the undersigned directors hereby agrees not to make any transfers of shares of Company Common Stock with the purpose of avoiding his or her agreements set forth in the preceding sentence and agrees to cause any transferee of such shares to abide by the terms of this Voting Agreement.  Each of the undersigned is entering into this Voting Agreement solely in his or her capacity as an individual shareholder and, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Voting Agreement, nothing in this Voting Agreement is intended or shall be construed to require any of the undersigned, (i) in his or her capacity as a director of Company or (ii) in his or her capacity as a trustee, personal representative or other fiduciary capacity, to act or fail to act in accordance with his or her duties in such director or fiduciary capacity.  This Voting Agreement is an individual agreement of each undersigned director with Purchaser and is not an agreement among the undersigned directors.  Furthermore, none of the undersigned makes any agreement or understanding herein in his or her capacity as a director of Company.  Notwithstanding any contrary provision herein, this Voting Agreement shall be effective from the date hereof and shall terminate and be of no further force and effect upon the earliest of (a) approval of the Plan of Merger by the shareholders of the Company; (b) the termination of the Plan of Merger in accordance with its terms; (c) upon a Company Adverse Recommendation Change (as defined in the Plan of Merger); or (d) the two year anniversary of the date of the Plan of Merger.  This Voting Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but such counterparts shall together constitute one and the same instrument.


 


	
Dated this 4th of December, 2017.
Exhibit 4.3


 


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated December 12, 2017, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-220826) of Smart Trust 356,
comprising Smart Trust, Adelante REIT Growth and Income Trust, Series 12.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


December 12, 2017
# Official Journal C 19A/20 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 19A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5920 January 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 19A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5920 January 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 019A/1 | Call for expression of interest for the selection of the Chair of the Panel referred to in Article 108 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 and his/her Deputy — Grade AD 16 — Special advisor under Article 5 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2016/C 019A/1

Call for expression of interest for the selection of the Chair of the Panel referred to in Article 108 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 and his/her Deputy — Grade AD 16 — Special advisor under Article 5 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN