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 on Form 10-Q/A of Golden River Resources Corporation (the “Company”) for the three months ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “report”), the undersigned, Joseph Gutnick, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:
  (1)           The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (2)           The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.
  Date: February 11, 2011




/s/ Joseph I. GutnickJoseph I. GutnickChairman of the Board, President andChief Executive Officer
No. 11-1239.

#### Telasco *v.*7320 Biscayne, LLC.

Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.
UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

No. 97-2150
B EN NY J. F L EMMI NG , A PP EL L ANT ,

V
. ANTHONY J. P RI NCI PI , S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE
.

Be fore I VERS, STEI

NB ERG, and GREENE, J ud ge s. O R D E R On Apr il 2 , 1 9 9 9 , th e Co u rt, in a s in g le

- ju d g e o r d e r , v a c a te d a Ju ly 2 9 , 1 9 9 7 , B o ard of Veter ans' Appea ls (Boa

rd) de cision and re manded the a ppellant' s claim to reope n a previously and finally disallowed cla im for Depa rtment of Ve tera

ns Affa i rs (V A) service connec tion for spontaneous pnuemothra ces. The Court cited as a basis for the rema

nd the opi nion of t he U.S. C ourt of Appe als for the Fe dera l Circuit (Fe dera l Circuit) in H o d g e v
. W est , 155 F.3d 1356 ( Fe d. Cir. 1998), which w as issued af t er the J uly

1997 Boa

rd dec ision on appeal a

nd which over

ruled the case law (pr incipally , Colvin v. De rwinski , 1 Vet.App. 171, 174 (1991)) that had been applied by the Boa rd i nit s d e c is io n . T h e a p p e ll a n t h a s f

il e d , th r o u g h c o u n s e l, a n a p p li c a ti o n f

o r an aw a r d

of re a so na ble a tt orney

fe e s and e xpe ns e s p ur su a nt t o th e Eq ua l A c c e ss t o Just ic e Ac t, 2 8 U .S. C. § 2412(d) ( EAJA). On April 6, 2001, the Sec reta ry filed, in Vaughn v. Principi , 1 5 Vet.App. 119 ( 2000) (pe r curiam order) , a re sponse in opposition t o the EAJA application of the appe llant in that case. The Court has order ed that the parties file supplemental briefing in that c ase a s to whether a n appellant who obtains a re mand base d on statutory revisions ena cted subseque nt to the Boa rd dec ision on a pp e a l ma y be c on sid e re d a

" pr evai li ng pa

rt y " in v ie w o f t

he U. S. Su

pr e me Court

op ini on in Buck hannon Board and Care Home v. W est Virginia Dep't of

Health and Human Re

sources , 1 21 S. Ct. 1835, 1839 (2001). The Court notes that the nature of the relief aff orded by the Court in Vaughn and in the instant ca se is simil ar, an d t h at t h e dis position of Vaughn could mater ially aff ect the instant proceedi n gs . There fore , in the interest of judicia l economy , the Court will stay further proce eding s in the instant case pe nding the dispositi on of Vaughn. Up on c on sid e ratio n o f t

he fo re g oin g , it

is ORDERED, sua sponte, that this matter is stayed pendingthe outcome of Vaughn , su pr a , or fu rt he r o rd e r o f t

he Court

. DA TE D: Oc tob e r 5 , 2 00 1 PER CU RI AM

.
III

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 219

Designating March 25, 1996 as ‘‘Greek Independence Day: A National Day

of Celebration of Greek and American Democracy’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 1, 1996

Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. SIMON, Mr. DOLE, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mrs.

BOXER, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. HEFLIN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Ms. SNOWE, Mr.

GRASSLEY, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. GLENN, Mr. BRADLEY, Mr. KENNEDY,

Mr. KERRY, Mr. REID, Mr. MACK, Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN, Mr. SARBANES, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. COHEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BIDEN, Mr.

PRESSLER, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. DODD, and Mr. WARNER) submitted the following resolution, which was referred to the Committee on

the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Designating March 25, 1996 as ‘‘Greek Independence Day:

A National Day of Celebration of Greek and American

Democracy’’.

Whereas the ancient Greeks developed the concept of democracy, in which the supreme power to govern was invested

in the people;

Whereas the Founding Fathers of the United States of America drew heavily upon the political experience and philosophy of ancient Greece in forming our representative democracy;
2

SRES 219 IS

Whereas the founders of the modern Greek state modeled

their government after that of the United States in an

effort to best imitate their ancient democracy;

Whereas Greece is one of only three nations in the world, beyond the former British Empire, that has been allied with

the United States in every major international conflict

this century;

Whereas 1996 will mark the historic first official state visit

to the United States of an elected head of state of

Greece;

Whereas these and other ideals have forged a close bond between our two nations and their peoples;

Whereas March 25, 1996 marks the 175th anniversary of the

beginning of the revolution which freed the Greek people

from the Ottoman Empire; and

Whereas it is proper and desirable to celebrate with the

Greek people, and to reaffirm the democratic principles

from which our two great nations were born: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That March 25, 1996 is designated as

2 ‘‘Greek Independence Day: A National Day of Celebration

3 of Greek and American Democracy’’. The President is re4 quested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people

5 of the United States to observe the day with appropriate

6 ceremonies and activities.

Æ
<PAGE>

                                                                  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 The Jones Financial
Companies, L.L.L.P. on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 28, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, James D. Weddle, Chief Executive Officer of the Partnership,
certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


                                  /s/  James D. Weddle
                                  ---------------------------------------
                                  Chief Executive Officer
                                  The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P.
                                  November 9, 2007
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 16


Andersen
Arthur Andersen LLP
Suite 1300
711 Louisiana
Houston, Texas 77002-2786
Tel-713-237-2323
Fax-713-237-2786
www.andersen.com


May 23, 2002


Office of the Chief Accountant
Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Dear Sir/Madam:

We have read Item 4 included in the Form 8-K dated May 23, 2002 of Tanox, Inc.
to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and are in agreement
with the statements contained therein.

Very truly yours,


Arthur Andersen LLP


Copy to: Ms. Nancy T. Chang,
         President and CEO,
         Tanox, Inc.
IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2022 ND 238

Terri Washington, Petitioner and Appellant

v.

Job Service North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

and

South West Multi County Correctional Center, Respondent

No. 20220269

Appeal from the District Court of Stark County, Southwest Judicial District, 

the Honorable Rhonda R. Ehlis, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Terri Washington, Dickinson, N.D., self-represented, petitioner and appellant; 

submitted on brief.

Michael T. Pitcher, Assistant Attorney General, Bismarck, N.D., for

respondent and appellee; submitted on brief.

FILED 

IN THE OFFICE OF THE 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

DECEMBER 22, 2022 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
1

Washington v. Job Service

No. 20220269

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Terri Washington appeals from a district court judgment affirming Job 

Service’s decision to deny her unemployment benefits. Washington argues that 

she was unlawfully terminated by her employer’s board of directors or its 

chairperson, that she was disciplined twice for one instance of misconduct, and 

that she was not afforded a fair hearing. We summarily affirm under 

N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5).

[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.

Gerald W. VandeWalle

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jerod E. Tufte
No. 11-9776.

#### Aziz *v.*Bennett et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

NAME OF CORPORATION                       STATE OF INCORPORATION
-------------------                       ----------------------
Clearwater Acquisition Corporation              Delaware
Lafayette Acquisition Corporation               Louisiana
Realty Acquisition Corporation                  Delaware
SPIALA Corporation                              Delaware
SPIANTONIO, Inc.                                Delaware
SPIAPT, Inc.                                    Alabama
SPIAPTLA, Inc.                                  Delaware
SPIBILE, Inc.                                   Alabama
SPICLIFF, Inc.                                  Delaware
SPICOM, Inc.                                    Alabama
SPICOMLA, Inc.                                  Delaware
SPIDAY, Inc.                                    Delaware
SPIDELA, Inc.                                   Delaware        
SPILAF, Inc.                                    Alabama
SPILAKE, Inc.                                   Delaware
SPILAN, Inc.                                    Delaware
SPILAND, Inc.                                   Alabama
SPILOT, Inc.                                    Alabama
SPIMALL, Inc.                                   Alabama
SPIMALLA, Inc.                                  Delaware
SPINAP, Inc.                                    Delaware
SPINELLON, Inc.                                 Delaware
SPINO, Inc.                                     Delaware
SPIPAL, Inc.                                    Delaware
SPIPOWER, Inc.                                  Alabama
SPITON, Inc.                                    Alabama
SPITOWN Corporation                             Delaware
SPIWACHEE, Inc.                                 Delaware
SPIWARD, Inc.                                   Delaware
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          54,942
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   82,875
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,190
<INVENTORY>                                     11,389
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               156,161
<PP&E>                                         874,780
<DEPRECIATION>                                 350,591
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 718,293
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           98,392
<BONDS>                                        156,832
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           352
<OTHER-SE>                                     431,884
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   718,293
<SALES>                                        206,529
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               236,404
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   51,298
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               125,304
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,811
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,420
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,016
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,404
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,404
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .50
        

</TABLE>
#### Joel David JOSEPH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-70006

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed May 31, 2017

*867Joel David Joseph, Pro Se

Jacob Earl Christensen, Teresa Ellen McLaughlin, Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Tax' Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Ap-pellee

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Joel David Joseph appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s summary judgment upholding the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue’s determination of deficiency for the 2010 tax year. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo. *Miller v. Comm’r,*310 F.3d 640, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The Tax Court properly granted summary judgment because Joseph failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the levy of funds from his individual retirement account did not constitute a distribution that is taxable gross income. *See*26 U.S.C. § 408(d)(1) (subject to certain exceptions, “any amount paid or distributed out of an individual retirement plan shall be included in gross income by the payee or distribute.... ”).

The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Joseph’s motion for leave to amend his petition because the proposed amendment would be been futile. *See Bonin v. Calderon,*59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Futility of amendment can, by itself, justify the denial of a motion for leave to amend.”); *Kelley v. Comm’r,*877 F.2d 756, 760 (9th Cir. 1989) (standard of review), *overruled on other grounds by Bufferd v. Comm’r,*506 U.S. 523, 113 S.Ct. 927, 122 L.Ed.2d 306 (1993).

We do not consider issues relating to the underlying tax levy that Joseph failed to raise in a collection due process hearing. *See*26 C.F.R. § 301.6330-l(f)(2) Q & A F3.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Deandre Derrick MEIGHAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30008

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 16, 2018 *

Filed January 19, 2018

Joseph Hilary Harrington, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSP — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, Russell E. Smoot, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-United States Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Washington, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Deandre Derrick Meighan, Pro Se

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).

MEMORANDUM **

Deandre Derrick Meighan appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 100-month concurrent sentences imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance and distribution of a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 846. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Meighan’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Meighan the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 76, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6260

DARRELL SILVERN ROCHESTER, a/k/a Darrell S. Rochester, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

HENRY MCMASTER; CECILIA REYNOLDS, Warden, Kershaw 

Correctional Institution, 

 Respondents - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Patrick Michael Duffy, District 

Judge. (8:08-cv-01677-PMD) 

Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 8, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Darrell Silvern Rochester, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Darrell Silvern Rochester seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 

petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction 

because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of 

the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends 

the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period 

is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of 

Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. 

Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Accord Bowles v. Russell, 

551 U.S. 205 (2007). 

The district court’s order was entered on December 23, 

2008. The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on 

February 4, 2009.∗

 Because Rochester failed to file a timely 

notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the 

appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

 ∗ See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). 

2 
3 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>         5
<LEGEND>
                  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
                  from Synaptix  Systems  Corporation  March 31, 1998  financial
                  statements  and is  qualified  in its entirety by reference to
                  such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                       0000817125
<NAME>                      Synaptix Systems Corporation

       

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-1998

<CASH>                                                   1,563
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         6,375
<PP&E>                                                   108,729
<DEPRECIATION>                                           (21,960)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           93,144
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    810,735
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 46,996
<OTHER-SE>                                               (764,587)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             93,144
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         837,621
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       46
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          (837,667)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      (837,667)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                             (837,667)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            (.05)
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                   CERTIFICATE OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2002 (the "Periodic Report"), I, Dan F. Smith, Chief
Executive Officer of Equistar Chemicals, LP, 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 Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
     or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section 78m or
     78o(d)); and

(2)  the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
     Equistar Chemicals, LP.

Date: November 13, 2002                     /s/ Dan F. Smith
                                            ------------------------
                                            Dan F. Smith
                                            Chief Executive Officer