alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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, Stan Larson, 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-Q for the period ended December 30, 2010, 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-Q 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.     Date: February 22, 2011  By: /s/ Stan Larson Stan Larson, Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 136 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                             H. J. RES. 136

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1999, and 
                          for other purposes.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 136

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1999, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That section 106(c) of Public 
Law 105-240 is further amended by striking ``October 16, 1998'' and 
inserting in lieu thereof ``October 20, 1998''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 16, 1998.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### IN RE: Louis C. NEMETH, Debtor. Louis C. Nemeth, Appellant, v. Amrane Cohen, Chapter 13 Trustee; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Appellees.

No. 17-60019

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*508*Submitted January 16, 2018

Filed January 25, 2018

Louis C. Nemeth, Pro Se

Jay K. Chien, Esquire, Amrane Cohen, Chapter 13 Trustee, Orange, CA, for Ap-pellee Amrane Cohen

Bonni S. Mantovani, Esquire, Attorney, Prober & Raphael, A Law Corporation, Woodland Hills, CA, for Appellee Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed, R, App. P. 34(a)(2). To the extent that Nemeth requests oral argument in his opening brief, the request is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Louis C. Nemeth appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing Nemeth’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. *Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re*Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Nemeth’s petition because Nemeth failed to make plan payments or post-petition mortgage payments. *See*11 U.S.C. § 1307(c)(4) (permitting dismissal for failure to make payments under the proposed payment plan); Bankr. C.D. Cal. R. 3015-1(m)(2), (7) (permitting dismissal for failure to make post-petition mortgage payments).

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

We reject as without merit Nemeth’s contention that his due process rights were violated and that the 180-day bar to refiling was improper.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
### SERVED: AUGUST 11, 2015 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS
. A.
- WASHINGTON, DC**~** i. '

. -', '

.. __; .,_" IN THE MATTER OF NA YELLI FIGUEROA DOCKETNO. FAA-2015-2443 (Civil Penalty Action)


### NOTICE OF ,ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2014S0190129) 

### has been assigned to Administrative LawJudge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served onthe Judge, the FAAHearing Docket, and the other persons onthe attached Service List.

Attachment

- Service List

### SERVICE LIST- BY 

### U.S. MAIL 

### ORIGINAL & 

### ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WI

# ooo 1


### Scott B. Bennett, Respondent's Counsel 

### The Bennett Law Center 3377 SW 3rd Avenue Miami, FL 33145 TEL: 305-648-2255 FAX: 305-648-2256 

### ONE COPY

RyanM. Landers, Complainant's Counsel 

### Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AS0-7 Southern Region 1701 ColumbiaAvenue College Park, GA 30337 TEL: 404-305-5200 FAX: 404-305-5223 Hon. J.E. Sullivan,Administrative LawJudge 

### Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAX: 202-366-7536 DocketNo. FAA-2015-2443 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was byU.S. Mail. For service inperson or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: HearingDocket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### -2-
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.3

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Current Report of U.S. Unwired, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 8-K dated August 16, 2002 (the "Report"), I, Robert W. Piper, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify 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 W. Piper
-----------------------
Robert W. Piper
Chief Executive Officer
August 16, 2002
#### James W. HUNTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

WD 80208

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: January 2, 2018

S. Kate Webber, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.

Julia E. Neidhardt, Kansas City, MO, for respondent.

Before Division Two: Thomas H. Newton, Presiding Judge, James E. Welsh, Judge, and Gary D. Witt, Judge

ORDER

Per Curiam:

James W. Hunter appeals from the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8258 

To direct the Secretary of energy to conduct an advanced fuel cycle research, 

development, demonstration, and commercial application program, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2020 

Mr. LEVIN of California introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of energy to conduct an advanced 

fuel cycle research, development, demonstration, and 

commercial application program, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Spent Nuclear Fuel 

5 Solutions Research and Development Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8258 IH

1 SEC. 2. USED NUCLEAR FUEL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, 

2 DEMONSTRATION, AND COMMERCIAL APPLI3 CATION. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct an 

5 advanced fuel cycle research, development, demonstration, 

6 and commercial application program that improves fuel 

7 cycle performance and supports a variety of options for 

8 used nuclear fuel storage, use, and disposal, including ad9 vanced nuclear reactor concepts, while minimizing envi10 ronmental and public health and safety impacts, includ11 ing— 

12 (1) dry cask storage; 

13 (2) consolidated interim storage; 

14 (3) deep geological storage and disposal, includ15 ing mined repository, and other technologies; 

16 (4) used nuclear fuel transportation; 

17 (5) integrated waste management systems; 

18 (6) vitrification; 

19 (7) fuel recycling and transmutation tech20 nologies, including advanced reprocessing tech21 nologies and plutonium uranium redox extraction 

22 technologies; 

23 (8) advanced materials to be used in para24 graphs (1) through (7); and 

25 (9) other areas as determined by the Secretary. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8258 IH

1 (b) REQUIREMENTS.—In carrying out the program 

2 under this subsection, the Secretary shall— 

3 (1) ensure all activities and designs incorporate 

4 state of the art safeguards technologies and tech5 niques to reduce risk of proliferation; 

6 (2) consult with the Administrator of the Na7 tional Nuclear Security Administration to integrate 

8 safeguards and security by design; 

9 (3) consider the potential benefits and other im10 pacts of those activities for civilian nuclear applica11 tions, environmental health and safety, and national 

12 security, including consideration of public consent; 

13 and 

14 (4) consider the economic viability of all activi15 ties and designs. 

16 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

17 are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry 

18 out the program under this section— 

19 (1) $91,875,000 for fiscal year 2021; 

20 (2) $96,468,750 for fiscal year 2022; 

21 (3) $101,292,188 for fiscal year 2023; 

22 (4) $106,356,797 for fiscal year 2024; and 

23 (5) $111,674,637 for fiscal year 2025. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-2104

___________ Irakli Bregvadze, * * Petitioner, * * Petition for Review v. * of an Order of the * Board of Immigration Appeals. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of * the United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Respondent. *

___________ Submitted: October 6, 2006 Filed: October 23, 2006

___________ Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Irakli Bregvadze, a citizen of Georgia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) which affirmed an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings. In February 2000 the former Immigration and Naturalization Servi ce (INS) charged Bregvadze with being removable and, in March 2000, he was ordered removed in absentia after he failed to appear for his removal hearing. Four year s later, in March 2004, he moved to reopen, but the IJ denied the motion as untimely, and the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision.-2- After careful review of the record, we conclude the BIA did not abuse its discretion in affirming the IJ’s denial of the motion to reopen as untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C) (motion to reopen inabsentia removal proceeding may be brought at any time if alien demonstrates he did not receive proper notice of the hearing; otherwise motion must be filed w ithin 180 days after date of removal order); Haider v. Gonzales , 438 F.3d 902, 906-08 (8th Cir. 2006) (BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying untimely-filed moti on to reopen where alien was personally served with Notice to Appear, putting him on notice of the removal proceedings including his obligation to keep his addr ess updated, and a s ubsequent Notice of Hearing, containing time and date informati on, was mailed to him at his listed address; alien’s assertion that he did not receive th e Notice of Hearing as he had moved did not provide grounds for reopening because he failed to update his address); Iavorski v. INS , 232 F.3d 124, 134 (2d Cir. 2000) (2-year delay between alien’s in absentia removal hearing and his next effort toward s investigating his claim reflected lack of diligence not warranting equitable tolling of limitations period for filing motion to reopen).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.

______________________________
NUMBER 13-10-00186-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

LEONARD WAYNE WHITE, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 252nd District Court 

of Jefferson County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Leonard Wayne White, was convicted of injury to a child, elderly or 

disabled individual. On March 22, 2010, appellant filed a notice of appeal by and 

through his appointed counsel. Appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to dismiss the 

appeal. According to the motion, appellant has been reinstated on probation and no 

longer desires to appeal. Counsel has tried several times to get appellant to sign the 
2

motion to dismiss, but appellant has failed to keep his appointments. Counsel states that 

appellant is not concerned about his appeal because his sentence was reconsidered by 

the judge and he was placed back on probation.

Although no written motion has been filed in compliance with Rule 42.2(a) of the 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we conclude that good cause exists to suspend the 

operation of Rule 42.2(a) in this case in accordance with Rule 2. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2. 

Based upon counsel’s sworn statements, counsel’s motion is granted and the appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Delivered and filed the

5th day of August, 2010.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 64 (Monday, April 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 19565]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06984]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94541; File No. SR-Phlx-2022-10]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of 
Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Changes To Amend Open Outcry Options 
Transaction Charges

March 29, 2022.
    On March 10, 2022, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'') filed with the 
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') pursuant to Section 
19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 
19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to increase the Floor Lead 
Market Maker and Floor Market Maker options transaction charge and pay 
a Floor Broker rebate whenever a Floor Broker executes an order contra 
a Floor Lead Market Maker or Floor Market Maker in certain open outcry 
transactions in multiply-listed Penny and non-Penny symbols. The 
proposed rule change was immediately effective upon filing with the 
Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\3\ The proposed 
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on March 
23, 2022.\4\ On March 29, 2022, Phlx withdrew the proposed rule change 
(SR-Phlx-2022-10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). A proposed rule change may take 
effect upon filing with the Commission if it is designated by the 
exchange as ``establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge 
imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person, whether 
or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory organization.'' 
15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94453 (March 17, 
2022), 87 FR 16529 (March 23, 2022).
    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-06984 Filed 4-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 71 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 71

 Expressing the sense of the Congress that Federal retirement cost-of-
     living adjustments should not be delayed, and that retirement 
 contributions on the part of Federal agencies and Federal and postal 
                   employees should not be increased.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 1, 1997

   Mr. Cummings (for himself, Mr. Hoyer, Mrs. Morella, Mr. Wynn, Mr. 
Filner, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Fazio of California, and Mr. DeFazio) submitted 
    the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the Congress that Federal retirement cost-of-
     living adjustments should not be delayed, and that retirement 
 contributions on the part of Federal agencies and Federal and postal 
                   employees should not be increased.

Whereas, over the years, Federal employees and retirees have regularly been 
        forced to bear a disproportionate share in connection with deficit 
        reduction;
Whereas it would be inequitable to delay cost-of-living adjustments for Federal 
        retirees when like delays for similarly situated retirees under other 
        systems are clearly inappropriate; and
Whereas it would be unfair to require greater retirement contributions on the 
        part of Federal agencies and Federal and postal employees when the 
        Congressional Budget Office testified before Congress, on June 28, 1995 
        (and reaffirmed on April 29, 1997), that ``the retirement fund does not 
        face a financial crisis'', and that the fund's ``projected cash flow 
        deficits appear to be manageable under the current pay-as-you-go 
        policy'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that--
            (1) cost-of-living adjustments for Federal retirees should 
        be paid in January of each year, as current law prescribes, and 
        should not be delayed, and
            (2) retirement contributions on the part of Federal 
        agencies and Federal and postal employees should not be 
        increased,
whether as part of a budget agreement or otherwise.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>





                                                                  EXHIBIT 31.2

         CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 15d-14(a) (17 CFR 240.15d-14(a))
               AND SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Robert Mayer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of ChrisKen Partners
Cash Income Fund L.P., a Delaware limited partnership;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

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

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; and
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report are conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures 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
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information, and;
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


Date: August 16, 2004

/s/Robert Mayer
Robert Mayer
Acting Principal Accounting Officer
ChrisKen Income Properties, Inc.,
     Managing General Partner
ChrisKen Partners Cash Income Fund L.P.

                                       19
#### Robert A. ESPINOZA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-3279

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted January 31, 2018 *

Decided February 1, 2018

*268Thomas W. Patton, Attorney, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Peoria, IL, for Petitioner-Appellant

Jason M. Bohm, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Urbana, IL, for Respondent-Appellee

Before William J. Bauer, Circuit Judge, Frank H. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge, Daniel A. Manion, Circuit Judge

*

 We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the appeal is frivolous. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(A).

Order

The judgment is affirmed on the authority of *Hill v. United States,*877 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 2017).

*

 This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). We have unanimously agreed to decide the case without argument because the-briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and argument would not significantly aid the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).