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

CERTIFICATIONS





CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002









I, Dr. Linda J. Allison__________, President and Chief Executive Officer of Bi-Optic Ventures, Inc. (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.  This Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period

ended November 30, 2007 as 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; and



2.  The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all

material respects, the financial condition and results of operations

of the Company.







Date:  January 14, 2008



/s/ Dr. Linda J. Allison

Dr. Linda J. Allison, President and Chief Executive Officer













1
**EXHIBIT 31.1****RULE 13A-14(a) [SECTION 302] CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, Andrew J. Ryback, Chief Financial Officer, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarter report on Form 10-Q of Plumas Bancorp (the Registrant);  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented 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)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; 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’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        Date:  November 9, 2005    /s/ Andrew Ryback   Andrew J. Ryback, Chief Financial Officer
# C_2017320EN.01000701.xml

| 27.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/7

---

Special Report No 14/2017

‘Performance review of case management at the Court of Justice of the European Union’

(2017/C 320/06)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 14/2017 ‘Performance review of case management at the Court of Justice of the European Union’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu

---
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Airports Council International-North America, Department of Transportation Advisory Committee for Aviation Consumer Protection
GLOVER v. The CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, et al.

356P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2019

R. Kent Brown, Attorney at Law, Jon Ryan Moore, Attorney at Law, Paige L. Pahlke, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, John R. Taylor, Attorney at Law, Robert E. Zaytoun, Attorney at Law, Matthew D. Ballew, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Glover, Briana Washington, et al.

John H. Beyer, Attorney at Law, Katherine H. Graham, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, et al.

Daniel N. Mullins, Attorney at Law, Durham.

William Conor Brockett, Associate General Counsel.

Phillip T. Jackson, Attorney at Law, Asheville, for N.C. Association of Defense Attorneys.

The following order has been entered on the conditional motion filed on the 22nd of October 2018 by North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2019."

Ervin and Davis, J. recused
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Harry Chew, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of

Bi-Optic Ventures, Inc. (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.  This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period

ended August 31, 2008 as 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; and



2.  The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all

material respects, the financial condition and results of operations

of the Company.







Date:  October 9, 2008



/s/  Harry Chew

Harry Chew, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer









1
Victor C. GARLOCK, CTA DBN Administrator of the Estate for, Raleigh Brisco Roland, Plaintiff, v. Eric Dale ROLAND, Defendant.

No. COA18-755

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 6, 2019

VACATED. REMANDED.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of American Standard Companies Inc. and in the Registration Statements on Form
S-3 pertaining to the registration of $750,000,000 of debt securities
(Registration No. 333-67943), From S-8 pertaining to the Stock Incentive Plan
(Registration No. 33-63007) and Form S-8 pertaining to the Employee Stock
Purchase Plan (Registration No. 333-40575) of our reports dated February 19,
1999 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of American Standard
Companies Inc. included in the Financial Supplement, and with respect to the
financial statement shcedules included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K).



                                                        /s/ Ernst and Young LLP



New York, New York
March 31, 1999
<SEQUENCE>3
<FILENAME>c03925exv32.txt
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 32

      CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
        OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Report (as defined under the preceding Certification
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, Peter Lamoureux,
President of Everest Asset Management, Inc. , the general partner of the Everest
Fund, L.P. (the "Fund"), 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 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 Fund.


                                        By: /s/ Peter Lamoureux
                                            ------------------------------------
                                        Name: Peter Lamoureux
                                        Title: Director, President and Treasurer
                                        November 24, 2010
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-11-00377-CR

EX PARTE MARTIN LEE TREDWAY

From the 220th District Court

Bosque County, Texas

Trial Court No. 05-02-13863-BCCR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Martin Lee Tredway has filed what he calls a “Motion for Harm Analysis,” in 

which he argues that the trial court improperly excluded evidence which purportedly 

supported his innocence with respect to his conviction for sexual assault of a child.1 In 

his motion, Tredway “prays his motion may be ‘granted’ in the interest of justice and 

without prejudice set aside and vacate the appellant’s judgment of sentence under 

 

1 Appellant’s “Motion for Harm Analysis” does not contain proof of service. A copy of all 

documents presented to the Court must be served on all parties to the appeal and must contain proof of 

service. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5. Proof of service may be in the form of either an acknowledgment of service by 

the person served or a certificate of service. Id. at R. 9.5 (d). 

On October 21, 2011, we received a letter informing us that appellant has not served his “Motion 

for Harm Analysis” on the State. To expedite this matter, we implement Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 2 and suspend the proof of service requirement of rule 9.5 for this document only. Id. at R. 2. 

All future filings must comply with rule 9.5.
Ex Parte Tredway Page 2

Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).”2 We construe Tredway’s

“Motion for Harm Analysis” as a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus. See TEX. CODE 

CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.01 (West 2005) (“The writ of habeas corpus is the remedy to be 

used when any person is restrained in his liberty.”).

This Court, as an intermediate appellate court, has no jurisdiction over postconviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases. See Ex parte Martinez, 175 S.W.3d 510, 

512-13 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, orig. proceeding) (“Our law requires postconviction applications for writs of habeas corpus, for felony cases in which the death 

penalty was not assessed, to be filed in the court of original conviction, made returnable 

to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.”) (citing TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, 

§3(a), (b) (West Supp. 2010)); In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st 

Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding) (noting that “only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 

has jurisdiction in final post-conviction felony proceedings”); see also Ex parte Maxey, 

No. 10-10-00345-CR, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 8141 (Tex. App.—Waco Oct. 6, 2010, no pet.) 

(mem. op., not designated for publication).

Because we have no jurisdiction over this post-conviction habeas corpus 

proceeding, we dismiss it.

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

 

2 We also note that the proposition of law for which Tredway cites the Clewis opinion has been 

overruled by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2010).
Ex Parte Tredway Page 3

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed November 2, 2011

Do not publish

[CR25]
STATE v. DaQuan Antonio GREEN

162P19-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2019

DaQuan Antonio Green, for Green, DaQuan.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 31st of December 2018 by Defendant for Petition Regarding Violation of Constitutional Rights:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 2019."
May 28 , 2015



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

RIVER OAKS L

- M. INC. D/B/A WEST P OINT LINCOLN MERCURY , Appellant

NO. 14

- 14

- 00059

- CV V.

VERONICA VINTON

- DUARTE , Appellee

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, Veronica Vinton

- Duarte , signed November 25, 2013, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find erro r in the judgment. We therefore REFORM the judgment of the court below as follows:
The amount awarded to plaintiff, Veronica Vinton

- Duarte against West Point is reduced from $739,623.88 to $ 625,197.87

. Veronica Vinton

- Duarte is awarded actual damages from West Point in the amount of $ 625,197.87

. This amount consists of $ 560,814.00 of compensatory damages as awarded by the jury on the sexual harassment and retaliation claims, and prejudgment interest of $ 64,383.87 calculated from August 30, 2010 until Novemb er 24, 2013. The compensatory damages reflect a reduction of $3,186.00, the amount awarded to West Point by the jury on its counterclaims , and a reduction of $125,000.00 due to the statutory damages cap provided by the Texas Labor Code

. We order the judgm ent of the court below AFFIRMED except as modified in this judgment.We order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 528

To amend the Missing Children’s Assistance Act to extend the applicability 

of such Act to individuals determined to have a mental capacity of 

less than 18 years of age. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2005

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida (for herself, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, 

and Ms. SLAUGHTER) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL

To amend the Missing Children’s Assistance Act to extend 

the applicability of such Act to individuals determined 

to have a mental capacity of less than 18 years of 

age.

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 ‘‘Audrey Nerenberg 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT. 

7 Section 403(1) of the Missing Children’s Assistance 

8 Act (42 U.S.C. 5772(1)) is amended by inserting ‘‘(or 
2

•HR 528 IH 

1 whose mental capacity is less than 18 years of age as de2 termined by an appropriate medical authority)’’ after 

3 ‘‘age’’. 

4 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

5 This Act and the amendment made by this Act shall 

6 take effect on the 1st day of the 1st fiscal year beginning 

7 after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 23, 2018

No. 04

- 17

- 00848

- CR

Lewis M. GARZA

, Appellant

v

.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR12120

Honorable Frank J. Castro, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file a brief is granted in part. We order

appellant’s brief due April 16, 2018.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 23rd day of March, 2018

.

___________________________________ K eith E. H ottle

Clerk of Court
January 10, 201 2



### JUDGMENT



## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

MARQUES NATHAN GANNT , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 00867

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

____________________

This cause was heard on the motion of the appellant to withdraw notice of appeal.

Having considered the motion the Court orders the appeal DISMISSED and that the

appellant pay all costs expended in this appeal, and further orders this decision certified

be low for observance.

We further order the Clerk of this Court to issue the mandate immediately.
**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 Amended Quarterly Report of AFV Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Carlos Zalduondo, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 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/ Carlos Zalduondo                      |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Carlos Zalduondo |
|--------|------------------|

|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|

|   | July 16, 2007 |
|--------|---------------|
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.3



                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company
for the three months ended September 30, 2004, I, William E. Elliott, President
and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 that:

      1)    such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three
            months ended September 30, 2004, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
            the Company for the three months ended September 30, 2004, fairly
            presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
            results of operations of Plumas Bancorp.


Date:  November 10, 2004                 /s/ W. E. Elliott
       -----------------              -----------------------------------
                                      William E. Elliott, President and Chief
                                                 Executive Officer
In the MATTER OF: K.C.W.

No. COA18-927

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 8, 2019

AFFIRMED.
-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

JAMES DECKER and KAY DECKER,

Plaintiffs-Appellants, FOR PUBLICATION October 28, 2014

v No. 316479
Oakland Circuit Court TRUX R US, INC., LC No. 2007-086261-NI

Defendant,

and

AUTO OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,

Garnishee Defendant-Appellee.

Before: R IORDAN , P.J., and C AVANAGH and T ALBOT , JJ.

C AVANAGH , J. ( dissenting ).

I respectfully dissent.

The issue in this case is whether MCR 3.101(L)(1) or MCR 3.101(M)(2) prohibit a plaintiff from conducting discovery if not initiated within 14 days after service of the garnishee disclosure although MCR 3.101(T) allows for motions to extend the time for conducting discovery.

Here, the trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion to extend the time in which to submit written interrogatories to Auto Owners, noting that subrule (M)(2) mandates that the facts stated in the disclosure be accepted as true unless discovery was serv ed “within the time allowed by subrule (L)(1),” i.e., within 14 days after service of the disclosure. However, subrule (T) grants
the trial court discretion to extend the time for c onducting discovery in garn ishment actions, as in
other civil actions. See MCR 3.10 1(T)(2) and (T)(3). But neit her subrule (L)(1) nor (M)(2) reference or incorporate the circumstances that result by operation of subrule (T).

The trial court’s interpretation of subrules (L)(1) and (M)(2), affirmed by the majority, impermissibly renders nugatory subrule (T). See Wickens v Oakwood Healthcare Sys , 465 Mich 53, 60; 631 NW2d 686 (2001). According to this in terpretation, even if a motion to extend time to conduct discovery was granted under subrule (T ), the information obtained would not become part of the garnishee disclosure and could not be us ed by plaintiff to contest the facts stated in the-2- disclosure. That is, the discovery requests would always be served after the time allowed by subrule (L)(1), in violation of MCR 3.101(M)(2), when a motion under subrule (T) is granted.

Accordingly, I would hold that the trial cour t’s denial of plainti ff’s motion to extend the time in which to conduct discovery was premised on an erroneous interpre tation of law and, thus,
constituted an abuse of discretion. See Kidder v Ptacin , 284 Mich App 1 66, 170; 771 NW2d 806 (2009) (citation omitted). Further, I would reverse the trial cour t’s order granting Auto Owners’ motion for summary disposition that was based on the erroneous ruling, and I would remand for further proceedings, including plaintiff’s servi ce of written interrogatories to Auto Owners.

/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
STATE v. Christopher B. SMITH

119PA18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 11, 2019

Jason Christopher Yoder, Attorney at Law.

Tiffany Y. Lucas, Assistant Attorney General.

G. Glenn Gerding, Attorney at Law.

John F. Carella, Staff Attorney.

Ivy Johnson, Attorney at Law.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th of July 2019 by North Carolina Advocates for Justice for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th of July 2019."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).