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 Annual Report of Great Western Bancorporation, Inc (Great Western) on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30,
2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Deryl F. Hamann, Chief Executive Officer of Great Western, 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:



| | (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 Great Western.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ Deryl F. Hamann        
|Deryl F. Hamann, Chairman  
|and Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

Case No.: 19-22704-BKC-MAM 

IN RE: Chapter 11 Proceeding

JEROME GOLDEN CENTER

FOR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC.

Debtor.

/

CORPORATE OWNERSHIP STATEMENT (RULE 7007.1)

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7007.1 and to enable the Judges to evaluate 

possible disqualification or recusal, the undersigned counsel for JEROME GOLDEN CENTER 

FOR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC., in the above captioned action, certifies that the following 

is a (are) corporation(s), other than the debtor or a governmental unit, that directly or indirectly 

own(s) 10% or more of any class of the corporation's(s') equity interests, or states that there are no 

entities to report under FRBP 7007.1:

■ None [Check if applicable]

September 30, 2019 /s/_Philip B. Harris 

Date Philip B. Harris, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 19781

PHILIP B. HARRIS, P.A.

685 Royal Palm Beach Blvd., Ste. 205

Royal Palm Beach. FL 33411

Telephone: (561) 543-7963

Case 19-22704-MAM Doc 17 Filed 09/30/19 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION 

www.flsb.uscourts.gov

In re: Case No. 18-16248-BKC-MAM 

 Chapter 7 

CHANCE & ANTHEM, LLC, 

 

 Debtor. 

 / 

ROBERT C. FURR not individually but ADV. NO. 19-01298-MAM 

as Chapter 7 Trustee of the estate of the 

Debtor, Chance & Anthem, LLC, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

JEFFREY M. SISKIND, individually and 

d/b/a SISKIND LEGAL SERVICES, 

et al.

 Defendants. 

 / 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO EXTEND TIME 

TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY[ECF NO. 284]; AND (II) MOTION TO CONTINUE 

PRETRIAL AND FOR EXTENSION OF PRETRIAL DEADLINES [ECF NO. 290] 

Mindy A. Mora, Judge

United States Bankruptcy Court

_____________________________________________________________________________

ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on May 14, 2020.

Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 325 Filed 05/14/20 Page 1 of 3
 2 

THIS MATTER came before the Court on May 12, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. upon the (i) 

Motion to Extend Time to Conduct Discovery [ECF No. 284] (“Motion to Extend”); (ii) Motion 

to Continue Pretrial Conference and for Extension of Pretrial Deadlines [ECF No. 290] (the 

“Motion to Continue”) filed by Defendant Jeffrey Siskind (“Siskind”), (iii) the Trustee’s 

Response in Opposition to the Motion to Continue and the Motion to Extend [ECF No. 290] (the 

“Response”) and the Joinder filed by the Related Party Defendants [ECF No. 316] (the 

“Joinder”). The Court has reviewed the Motion to Extend, the Motion to Continue, the Response 

and the Joinder, the record in this case, and has heard the argument of counsel with respect to the 

relief granted herein, and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, it is 

ORDERED, as follows: 

1. The Motion is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. 

2. The Pretrial Conference is hereby continued to July 14, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. at the 

United States Bankruptcy Court, Flagler Waterview Building, 1515 N Flagler Drive, Room 801 

Courtroom A, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 or as may be appropriate under prevailing 

circumstances by Court Solutions. 

3. The corresponding pretrial deadlines are extended accordingly to coincide with 

the continued Pretrial Conference. 

4. The Court will schedule trial in this matter at the Pretrial Conference and 

will not grant further requests for extensions of time or continuances of the Pretrial 

Conference. 

### 

Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 325 Filed 05/14/20 Page 2 of 3
 3 

Submitted by: 

Jesus M. Suarez, Esq. 

Counsel for the Plaintiff 

Genovese Joblove & Battista, P.A. 

100 SE 2nd Street, Suite 4400 

Miami, FL 33131 

Tel: (305) 349-2300 

Email: jsuarez@gjb-law.com

[Attorney Suarez shall serve a copy of this Order to all interested parties and file a certificate of 

service] 

Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 325 Filed 05/14/20 Page 3 of 3
31.1     Certification of the Chief Executive Officer of National Realty and
         Mortgage, Inc. pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
         2002

I, Richard Astrom, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of National Realty and Mortgage, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I am responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer 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 small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our 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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

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

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: August 7, 2006


/s/ RICHARD ASTROM
-----------------------
Richard Astrom
Chief Executive Officer
SNV_Exhibit 10.33_12.31.2011






Exhibit 10.33
Synovus Financial Corp.'s 
Annual Base Salaries for Named Executive Officers 
Set forth below are the base salaries for persons identified as “named executive officers” of Synovus Financial Corp. (“Synovus”) for the year ended December 31, 2011, as approved by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors: 
 
	
					
	 
	 
	 

	Name
 
	Title
 
	Base Salary 
 

	Kessel D. Stelling
	President and Chief Executive Officer
	$
	875,000
	


	Thomas J. Prescott
	EVP and Chief Financial Officer
	397,000
	


	Samuel F. Hatcher
	EVP, General Counsel and Secretary
	334,000
	


	Roy Dallis Copeland, Jr.    
	EVP and Chief Banking Officer
	323,000
	


	Mark G. Holladay
	EVP and Chief Risk Officer
	323,000
AFFIRM and Opinion Filed December 9,1999

In The

Caitrt of Appeals

Jfftftlj Ststmt at Qtexas at Dallas

No. 05-99-00142-CR

MICHAEL SHAUN WAKE, Appellant

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the CountyCriminal Court No. 8

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. MB98-25376-J

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before ChiefJustice Thomas and Justices Bridges and Farris1

Opinion By Justice Farris

The issues in this appeal are two: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in

overruling Wake's motion to suppress, and (2) the factual sufficiency ofthe evidence. We overrule

each ofWake's points of error and affirm the judgment.

Wake's first three points of error complain the trial court erred in overruling his motion to

suppress the evidence ofmarijuana. Specifically, Wake contends the police lacked probable cause

and reasonable suspicion to enter the motel room where the marijuana was found and he was

1The Honorable David F. Farris, Former Justice, Second District Court ofAppeals, Fort Worth, Texas, sitting by assignment.
arrested. We overrule all three points because Wake did not meet his burden ofproving that he had

alegitimate expectation ofprivacy in the motel room. See Calloway v. State, 743 S.W.2d 645, 650

(Tex. Crim. App. 1988). There was no testimony identifying anyone present as amotel guest. By

his own admission, Wake had arrived at the motel room only minutes before the police, and the

room was occupied by others when he arrived.

In his factual sufficiency point of error, Wake challenges the credibility ofapolice officer

who testified that abag of marijuana fell from Wake's "lap area" as he stood up. Wake also

contends his statement that the marijuana belonged to him was coerced by the police. Two police

officers testified that they saw the marijuana fall as Wake stood and both contradicted Wake's

testimony that his confession was coerced. We overrule this point because, after reviewing all of

the evidence, we are unable to say that the verdict was so contrary to the overwhelming weight of

the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. See Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1996). Thejudgment is affirmed.

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47

-2-

TfarkE &^Z-v^&£>

justice, assigned
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Reports 

#           Methods for estimating selected flow-duration and flood-frequency characteristics at ungaged sites in Central Idaho      

      January 1, 1998    

View Document

Methods for estimating daily mean discharges for selected flow durations and flood discharge for selected recurrence intervals at ungaged sites in central Idaho were applied using data collected at streamflow-gaging stations in the area. The areal and seasonal variability of discharge from ungaged drainage basins may be described by estimating daily mean discharges that are exceeded 20, 50, and 80 percent of the time each month. At 73 gaging stations, mean monthly discharge was regressed with discharge at three points—20, 50, and 80—from daily mean flow-duration curves for each month. Regression results were improved by dividing the study area into six regions. Previously determined estimates of mean monthly discharge from about 1,200 ungaged drainage basins provided the basis for applying the developed techniques to the ungaged basins. Estimates of daily mean discharges that are exceeded 20, 50, and 80 percent of the time each month at ungaged drainage basins can be made by multiplying mean monthly discharges estimated at ungaged sites by a regression factor for the appropriate region. In general, the flow-duration data were less accurately estimated at discharges exceeded 80 percent of the time than at discharges exceeded 20 percent of the time. Curves drawn through the three points for each of the six regions were most similar in July and most different from December through March.

Coefficients of determination of the regressions indicate that differences in mean monthly discharge largely explain differences in discharge at points on the daily mean flow-duration curve. Inherent in the method are errors in the technique used to estimate mean monthly discharge.

Flood discharge estimates for selected recurrence intervals at ungaged sites upstream or downstream from gaging stations can be determined by a transfer technique. A weighted ratio of drainage area times flood discharge for selected recurrence intervals at the gaging station can be used to estimate flood discharge at the ungaged site. Best results likely are obtained when the difference between gaged and ungaged drainage areas is small.

## Citation Information

### Study Area

### Contact

#### Idaho Water Science Center

230 Collins Rd.Boise, ID83702-4520United States

Phone: (208) 387-1300

(208) 387-1372

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - Salmon River Basin;Clearwater River Basin;Weiser River Basin;Payette River Basin;Snake River
                  - Idaho
                  - Salmon River Basin
                  - Clearwater River Basin
                  - Weiser River Basin
                  - Payette River Basin
                  - Snake River

View All **
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

PA DOC INMATE ID NO. MK9513, PARIS 

LAVAR GANTZ,

Petitioner

v.

PA DOC SECRETARY, JOHN E. 

WETZEL, ET AL,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 164 MM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of December, 2018, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-50892

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE LUIS FUENTES-PICON,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-01-CR-215-ALL

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

February 21, 2002

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Luis Fuentes-Picon appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Fuentes-Picon argues that his sentence should not have been

enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on his prior

deportation following an aggravated felony conviction. He

asserts that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define

separate offenses and that an aggravated felony conviction is an

element of the offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). Fuentes-
No. 01-50892 

-2-

Picon states that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which

charged simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that

his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment

which may be imposed for that offense. 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Fuentes-Picon acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the validity of that decision

has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466,

490 (2000). Fuentes-Picon seeks to preserve his argument for

further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). This court

must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court

itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an

appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

 AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Case 19-24662-SMG Doc 2 Filed 10/31/19 Page 1 of 3
Case 19-24662-SMG Doc 2 Filed 10/31/19 Page 2 of 3
Case 19-24662-SMG Doc 2 Filed 10/31/19 Page 3 of 3
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           The lunar cratering chronology      

      December 1, 2023    

This chapter provides an introduction to crater-size frequency distribution (CSFD) measurements and presents a review of the work performed on dating lunar geological units using CSFDs since the last New Views of the Moon volume (2006), including various volcanic and tectonic features, as well as individual impact craters. At the end of the chapter, implications for the new CSFD age determinations for the geologic history and evolution of the Moon are discussed.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### Lillian Rose Ostrach, PhD

##### Research Physical Scientist

Astrogeology Science Center

lostrach@usgs.gov

928-556-7035

## Related Content

#### Lillian Rose Ostrach, PhD

##### Research Physical Scientist

Astrogeology Science Center

lostrach@usgs.gov

928-556-7035

### Contact

####               Astrogeology Science Center          

2255 N. Gemini DriveFlagstaff, AZ86001United States

928-556-7000

928-556-7014
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1291 

KA 15-00846 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JAMES M. CARLBERG, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

HUNT & BAKER, HAMMONDSPORT (BRENDA SMITH ASTON OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

BROOKS T. BAKER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATH (JOHN C. TUNNEY OF COUNSEL),

FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Steuben County Court (Marianne

Furfure, A.J.), entered May 4, 2015. The order determined that

defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender

Registration Act. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On appeal from an order determining that he is a

level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act

(Correction Law § 168 et seq.), defendant contends that County Court

erred in failing to grant a downward departure from his presumptive

risk level. We reject that contention. “A departure from the

presumptive risk level is warranted if there is ‘an aggravating or

mitigating factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not

adequately taken into account by the guidelines’ ” (People v Smith,

122 AD3d 1325, 1325, quoting Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk

Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 4 [2006]). Defendant failed

to identify or establish the existence of any such mitigating factor

(see People v Lowery, 140 AD3d 1141, 1142, lv denied 28 NY3d 903; see

generally People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 861). Contrary to

defendant’s further contention, the court properly assessed 15 points

under risk factor 11 for history of drug or alcohol abuse. 

Defendant’s criminal history includes two prior alcohol-related

convictions (see People v Green, 104 AD3d 1222, 1222, lv denied 21

NY3d 860), and his purported abstinence while incarcerated and limited

consumption of alcohol during the brief period following his release

is not necessarily predictive of his future behavior (see People v

Jackson, 134 AD3d 1580, 1580-1581; Green, 104 AD3d at 1223). The

court also properly assessed 10 points under risk factor 13 for

unsatisfactory conduct while supervised because the People established

that defendant violated the terms of his supervision by engaging in
-2- 1291 

KA 15-00846 

criminal conduct (see People v Young, 108 AD3d 1232, 1233, lv denied

22 NY3d 853, rearg denied 22 NY3d 1036; People v Lowery, 93 AD3d 1269,

1270, lv denied 19 NY3d 807). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the

assessment of points under risk factor 11 and risk factor 13 did not

constitute impermissible double counting, notwithstanding the fact

that the unsatisfactory conduct while supervised was alcohol-related. 

Entered: December 23, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

In re: Case No. 18-16314-LMI

LA CAPITAL DE LA FRUTA I, INC.,

Chapter 7

Debtor.

____________________________________/

DREW M. DILLWORTH AS CHAPTER 7

TRUSTEE,

Plaintiff, Adv. Pro. No.19-01800-LMI

-vsA.M.L.L. CORPORATION,

d/b/a Antonio Pena Distributors,

Defendant.

____________________________________/

AGREED ORDER OF DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT)

This matter came on before the Court for consideration of a voluntary dismissal 

based upon settlement between the parties (Trustee and Defendant) and the Court, 

Laurel M. Isicoff

Chief United States Bankruptcy Judge

___________________________________________________________________________

ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on June 3, 2020.

Case 19-01800-LMI Doc 23 Filed 06/04/20 Page 1 of 2
having reviewed the file and noting the agreement to dismissal based upon the 

submission of this Agreed Order by Trustee’s Counsel and the yet-to-be-filed motion to 

approve same in the parent case, and finding good cause shown, does 

ORDER:

1. That the instant adversary proceeding is dismissed based 

upon the settlement between the parties, and the Clerk of 

the Court is directed to close this adversary proceeding.

2. This Court reserves jurisdiction to reinstate this Adversary 

proceeding or enforce the settlement should the settlement 

not be approved or otherwise complied with.

3. Each party hereto shall bear their own fees and costs.

###

Submitted by:

 JAMES B. MILLER, ESQ.

Copies to:

James B. Miller, Esq.

Luis R. Casas, Esq.

Case 19-01800-LMI Doc 23 Filed 06/04/20 Page 2 of 2