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








In connection with the Annual Report of Entest BioMedical, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended August 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David R. Koos, Chief Executive Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(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.











Dated:  November 2, 2011
/s/ David R. KoosDavid R. KoosChief Executive Officer
In the INTEREST OF: M.S.P. and M.B.L.

No. ED 107106

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: June 25, 2019

FOR APPELLANT: Christopher M. Braeske, 8008 Carondelet Avenue, Suite 300, Clayton, Missouri 63105.

FOR RESPONDENTS: Krista Peyton, Jennifer C. Hoffman, 105 S. Central Avenue, Clayton, Missouri 63105, Ashley R. Beumer, Guardian Ad Litem, 5853 Walsh Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63109, Richard J. Childress, 111 North 7th Street, Suite 329, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.

Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., James M. Dowd, J., and Robin Ransom, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

In this consolidated appeal, A.S.L. ("Mother") challenges the two judgments entered by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County that terminated her parental rights to M.S.P. and M.B.L., respectively. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 12384]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6312]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,443]


Johnson Controls; Columbia, TN; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on March 2, 2009 in response to a petition 
filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Johnson Controls, 
Columbia, Tennessee.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of March 2009.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-6312 Filed 3-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 111]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-28277]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-494-000]


Beech Ridge Energy II Holdings LLC; Supplemental Notice That 
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 
204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Beech Ridge Energy II Holdings LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is January 15, 2018.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7b3d3e293834151712151e280e0b0b14090f3b1d1e0918551c140d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7c3a392e3f3312101512192f090c0c130e083c1a190e1f521b130a">[email protected]</span></a>. or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: December 26, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-28277 Filed 12-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 32
----------




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



     The following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be
deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 or any other securities law:

     Each of the undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on
Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and that the
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of JMB/245 PARK
AVENUE ASSOCIATES, LTD.





By: /s/ Patrick J. Meara          By: /s/ Gailen J. Hull
    ----------------------            ----------------------------
    Patrick J. Meara                  Gailen J. Hull
    Chief Executive Officer           Chief Financial Officer and
                                      Principal Accounting Officer
Teresa Jean MCCORMICK, Appellant v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee

No. CR-18-60

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division III.

Opinion Delivered: November 28, 2018

Lisa-Marie Norris, for appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Rebecca Kane, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.

DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge

Teresa McCormick appeals from the revocation of her suspended sentences. We affirm.

Teresa pleaded guilty to the underlying offenses of three counts of conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance (Roxicodone ) on November 6, 2009. She received a suspended sentence on each count. The conditions of her suspended sentences included not committing any offenses punishable by imprisonment. On May 16, 2017, the State filed a petition to revoke, alleging Teresa had committed the new offenses of residential burglary and theft of property. At the conclusion of the November 7, 2017 revocation hearing, Teresa moved for a directed verdict, arguing that the State had not proved its residential-burglary basis for revocation. The trial court denied the motion and found Teresa had violated the terms and conditions of her suspended sentences. The trial court did not prepare an order setting forth its findings and conclusions; however, no objection was raised to the lack of a written order. The pertinent docket entry for November 7, 2017, provided:

> Revocation plea hearing held - McCormick, Teresa - in open crt before MJM, A. Johnson/Reporter, State/McCune, Deft Pres w/PD - Ryan Norris, Sworn testimony take w/rule, PD makes oral motion for direct verdict, Crt denies motion, Crt finds Deft did viol term and conds of susp sentence, Deft sentenced to 5 yrs ADC plus 10 yrs susp on resd burglary and 10 yrs on theft of prop, Deft to pay rest, crt grants appeal bond $5,000

The sentencing order was entered on November 20, 2017. This appeal followed, with Teresa challenging only the residential-burglary basis for revocation, not the theft of property.

To revoke a suspended sentence, the trial court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant inexcusably violated a condition of the suspension. *Bedford v. State* , 2014 Ark. App. 239, 2014 WL 1663033. The State bears the burden of proof, but it need only prove the defendant committed one violation in order to sustain the revocation. *Id.* When a trial court bases its decision on alternate, independent grounds, and the appellant challenges only one of those grounds, we will affirm without addressing the merits of either. *Id.*

Here, Teresa challenges only one of the grounds supporting her revocation. We therefore affirm the revocation without addressing the merits of either residential burglary or theft of property.

Affirmed.

Harrison and Klappenbach, JJ., agree.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER







PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with this Annual Report of USD Energy Corp.,  (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Trisha Malone, the Chief Executive Officer and Director 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 to my knowledge:



1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009, 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated:  April 14, 2010



/s/  Trisha Malone

Trisha Malone

Chief Executive Officer, and Director
Exhibit 31.2
**CERTIFICATION**
I, James E. Hogue, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Wiltex A, Inc.
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport.
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financialinformation included in the quarterly report fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in the quarterly report.
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant, and we have:
     a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, if any, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared;
     b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of thisquarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”), and
     c. Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluationas of the Evaluation Date;
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the AuditCommittee of the registrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):
     a. All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internalcontrols which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for theregistrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
     b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls;and
6. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have indicated in thisquarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internalcontrols or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controlssubsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any correctiveactions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.         By:       /s/ JAMES E. HOGUE    James E. Hogue    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)   
Date: September 8, 2004
---

EXHIBIT 99.7

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David Blaiklock, Chief Financial Officer of Primero Mining
Corp. (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, to the
best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Annual Report on Form 40-F/A of the Company for the
      fiscal year ended December 31, 2011 (the Annual Report) fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
      Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Annual Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                   

| | By:    | /s/
      David Blaiklock
| | ------ | -------------------------
| | Name:  | David Blaiklock          
| | Title: | Chief Financial Officer  
| |        |                          
| | Date:  | May 23, 2012             

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6736

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SHIHEEN RICHARDSON, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-95-17-2, CA-96-1013-R) Submitted: July 30, 1998 Decided: August 27, 1998 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven David Rosenfield, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find noreversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Richardson , Nos. CR-95-17-2, CA-96-1013-R (W.D. Va. Sept. 18, 1997; May 12, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EX PARTE Allen Keith ROBINSON

CR-16-0007

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 18, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,110]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 4, 2009 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Keystone Powdered Metal Company, St. Marys, Pennsylvania.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of March 2009.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-6525 Filed 3-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT JUNE 30, 1997 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
INCOME FOR THE  SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THIS FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE HAS BEEN
RESTATED AS A RESULT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS
NUMBER 128 AMENDING EARNING PER SHARE CALCULATIONS.

</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           7,302
<SECURITIES>                                    49,120
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,969
<ALLOWANCES>                                        62
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                70,637
<PP&E>                                         110,600
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,315
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 202,229
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,799
<BONDS>                                         79,705
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        148
<COMMON>                                            27
<OTHER-SE>                                     120,550
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   202,229
<SALES>                                          6,654
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,657
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,783
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    18
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,610
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,150
<INCOME-TAX>                                       841
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,309
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,309
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.49
        

</TABLE>
Michael Allen GRIFFIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. SC17-1306

Supreme Court of Florida.

[February 2, 2018]

Martin J. McClain of McClain & McDermott, P.A., Wilton Manors, Florida, for Appellant

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Melissa J. Roca, Assistant Attorney General, Miami, Florida, for Appellee

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Michael Allen Griffin's appeal of the circuit court's order denying Griffin's motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. *See* art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

Griffin's motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's decision in *Hurst v. Florida*, --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and our decision on remand in *Hurst v. State* (*Hurst* ), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), *cert. denied*, --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2161, 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). This Court stayed Griffin's appeal pending the disposition of *Hitchcock v. State*, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), *cert. denied*, --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017). After this Court decided *Hitchcock*, Griffin responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why *Hitchcock* should not be dispositive in this case.

*238After reviewing Griffin's response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Griffin is not entitled to relief. Griffin was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two. *Griffin v. State*, 639 So.2d 966, 968 (Fla. 1994). Griffin's sentence of death became final in 1995. *Griffin v. Florida*, 514 U.S. 1005, 115 S.Ct. 1317, 131 L.Ed.2d 198 (1995). Thus, *Hurst* does not apply retroactively to Griffin's sentence of death. *See**Hitchcock*, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Griffin's motion.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Griffin, we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion.

LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result.

PARIENTE, J., concurring in result.

I concur in result because I recognize that this Court's opinion in *Hitchcock v. State*, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), *cert. denied*, --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017), is now final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in *Hitchcock*.