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 CNB Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Jeffrey H. Noblin, President
and Chief Executive Officer and Elizabeth T. Beale, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, do each 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 operation of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This 30thday of March, 2011.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Jeffrey H. Noblin  
|Jeffrey H. Noblin      
|Chief Executive Officer
|                       
|/s/ Elizabeth T. Beale 
|Elizabeth T. Beale     
|Chief Financial Officer



60
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Chesapeake Bay Impact Crater

Filters

              - connect_staff_profiles(1)

## By Location

## By Year

              - (-)2024(1)

staff profileJ. Wright Horton, Jr., Ph.D.
Norris COLEMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-644

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[August 22, 2018]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Patrick B. Burke, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melanie Dale Surber, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*770The state filed an affidavit alleging eleven counts of appellant's having violated his probation. Three of the counts related to failure to pay restitution and costs (counts 1-3), six counts related to fleeing from the police in a car chase (counts 4-9), and two counts related to aggravated child abuse (counts 10-11). The trial court found willful and substantial violations for all of the counts except counts 1, 8, and 9. As to those counts for which the court found willful and substantial violations, the court found that the failure to pay restitution and court costs did not warrant a prison sentence (counts 2-3). However, the court found that the car chase and child abuse (counts 4-7 and 10-11) did warrant a prison sentence and sentenced appellant to twelve years in prison for the robbery offense underlying appellant's probation.

We affirm the order revoking appellant's probation and imposing sentence. However, we remand with instructions for the trial court to strike the violations for failure to pay restitution and court costs because the record does not demonstrate that appellant had the ability to pay those costs. *See**Del Valle v. State* , 80 So.3d 999, 1011 (Fla. 2011) ; *Allen v. State* , 464 So.2d 256, 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Because the trial court expressly stated that the violation for those two counts did not warrant a prison sentence and that its sentence was based on the other violations, "it is clear from the record that the trial court would have revoked probation and imposed the same sentence based solely upon the remaining counts ...." *Mata v. State* , 31 So.3d 257, 260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Therefore, we affirm the order revoking probation but remand for the trial court to strike its findings of violations for counts 2 and 3.

*Affirmed and remanded.*

Levine, Forst, JJ., and Artau, Edward L., Associate Judge, concur.
Edward BAKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1488

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[August 9, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Crops

Filters

              - products_publications(2)

## By Location

              - alabama(11)
              - alaska(19)
              - arizona(24)
              - arkansas(15)
              - california(62)
              - colorado(19)
              - connecticut(2)
              - delaware(5)
              - florida(14)
              - georgia(5)
              - hawaii(16)
              - idaho(9)
              - illinois(7)
              - indiana(14)
              - iowa(19)
              - kansas(13)
              - kentucky(3)
              - louisiana(8)
              - maine(3)
              - maryland(19)
              - massachusetts(5)
              - michigan(11)
              - minnesota(12)
              - mississippi(16)
              - missouri(10)
              - montana(10)
              - nebraska(21)
              - nevada(6)
              - new jersey(2)
              - new mexico(9)
              - new york(4)
              - north carolina(5)
              - north dakota(21)
              - ohio(5)
              - oklahoma(15)
              - oregon(5)
              - pennsylvania(7)
              - puerto rico(7)
              - (-)south carolina(2)
              - south dakota(49)
              - tennessee(7)
              - texas(20)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - utah(13)
              - vermont(2)
              - virginia(6)
              - washington(10)
              - wisconsin(10)
              - wyoming(14)

## By Year

publication        January 1, 1979        Winter feeding habits of quail in longleaf-slash pine habitat

publication        January 1, 2011        Overview and status of the witchweed (striga asiatica) eradication program in the Carolinas
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Declination

Filters

              - (-)science_science(4)
              - products_publications(18)
              - news_news-149245(1)

## By Location

              - alabama(3)
              - alaska(6)
              - american samoa(1)
              - arizona(3)
              - arkansas(4)
              - california(44)
              - colorado(9)
              - florida(5)
              - georgia(5)
              - hawaii(3)
              - idaho(8)
              - kansas(2)
              - louisiana(3)
              - maine(1)
              - maryland(3)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - mississippi(2)
              - montana(7)
              - nebraska(2)
              - nevada(3)
              - (-)new jersey(4)
              - new mexico(6)
              - new york(3)
              - north carolina(3)
              - north dakota(6)
              - ohio(1)
              - oklahoma(2)
              - oregon(4)
              - pennsylvania(2)
              - puerto rico(2)
              - south carolina(2)
              - south dakota(4)
              - tennessee(2)
              - texas(3)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - utah(3)
              - virginia(4)
              - washington(12)
              - wyoming(7)

## By Year

Project        April 14, 2004        Evaluation of bacterial contamination in surface water and shallow groundwater in Morristown National Historical Park, New Jersey

Project        March 24, 2012        Barnegat Bay Nutrient Loading and Eutrophication

Project        March 24, 2007        Critical area analysis

Research        December 20, 2016        Monitoring migration of American woodcock past Cape May, NJ
LAKEVIEW HOME CARE, L.L.C., William Cloughley, Michael Cassidy and Christopher Vince v. Jeremy Michael PALMER, and Jeremy Palmer, CPA, L.L.C.

NO. 2018-CC-0721

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 14, 2018

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
**Exhibit15.1****KPMG    Letterhead** **Consent    of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration    statement (No. 333-139459) on    Form F-3    of Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras of our report dated    April 5, 2007, with respect to the consolidated balance    sheet of Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras (and    subsidiaries) as of December 31, 2006, and the related    consolidated statements of income, shareholders’ equity and    cash flows for the year then ended, management’s assessment    of the effectiveness of internal control over financial    reporting as of December 31, 2006 and the effectiveness of    internal control over financial reporting as of    December 31, 2006, which report appears in the    December 31, 2006 combined annual report on    Form 20-F/A    of Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras and Petrobras    International Finance Company. Our audit report covering the    December 31, 2006 consolidated financial statements refers    to a change in accounting for post retirement benefits resulting    from the adoption of SFAS 158 *Employers’ Accounting    for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans*.     /s/ KPMG Auditores Independentes    KPMG Auditores Independentes     Rio de Janeiro, Brazil    June 27, 2007
Roosevelt BRADLEY, II, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-542

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
* Pursua nt to 5 T H C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

October 29, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40486

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

VINCENT ROSALES,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(6:03-CR-97-ALL)

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

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Vincent Rosales appeals the sentence

imposed by the district court following his guilty-plea conviction

for aiding and abetting the possession of a sto len firearm. 18

U.S.C. §§ 2, 922(j), 924(a)(2). Rosales argues that the district

court erred in increasing his offense level by four levels under

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) for possessing a firearm in connection with

the felony offense of burglary, arguing that the stolen firearm was

not used “in connection with” the burglary but, rather, was the2

“object” of the burglary. Rosales misses the mark. First, the

guideline in question applies disjunctively to use or possession;

and Rosales indisputably possessed the firearm in question during

the burglary, from the time it was stolen for the remainder of the

burglary. S ee United States v. Luna

, 165 F.3d 316, 323 -24 (5th

Cir. 1999). Second, the district court did not clearly err in

determining that Rosales possessed a firearm “in connection with”

the burglary offense. S ee United States v. Armstead

, 114 F.3d 504,

512 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Condren

, 18 F.3d 1190, 1193,

1199-1200 (5th Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Luna

, 165 F.3d

at 322-24. The sentence imposed by the district court is

AFFIRMED.
Lamartille DELVA, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. JAMES B. NUTTER AND COMPANY, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-0215

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

JULY 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
George M. DURRANCE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-717

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[August 1, 2018]

George M. Durrance, Miami, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda Melear, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

The pro se defendant appeals an order denying his Amended Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. We affirm the order, but without prejudice to allow the defendant to file his original amended motion.

The defendant filed his first Rule 3.850 motion in 2012. In June 2014, the trial court denied relief except for ground one, point one, in which he claimed affirmative misadvice of counsel leading him to reject a five-year plea deal. The trial court found the claim insufficient, and gave the defendant sixty days to amend.

Concerned that he would miss the deadline because he was being moved to another institution, the defendant moved for an extension of time to amend. The trial court granted the motion. He submitted the amended motion to prison officials for mailing on August 20, 2014, the original due date. (A copy of the amended motion bearing a prison mailing stamp date of August 20, 2014 is included in his appendix.)

On March 18, 2015, the defendant filed a Notice of Inquiry regarding his amended motion. The trial court responded that it had not received the amended motion and instructed the defendant to refile it. Instead of filing his original amended motion, he filed a new amendment, raising the same claim as the original. The trial court *129denied the new amended motion as untimely. The defendant appealed, and we affirmed.

On April 27, 2017, the defendant filed the instant Rule 3.850 motion. He argues the amendment should be treated as timely, because the prison mailing stamp was within the time period to amend the motion. But, unfortunately, the trial court was not provided with the original amended motion dated August 20, 2014.

"It is fundamental that an appellate court cannot reverse a trial court on the basis of facts which were not presented to the trial court, and therefore are not part of the record on appeal." *Patterson v. Weathers* , 476 So.2d 1294, 1296 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).

The defendant has never presented the original, date-stamped amended motion to the trial court. The trial court docket has no record of the original amended motion ever being submitted. We therefore affirm the order without prejudice to allow the defendant to file the original amended motion with the stamped date showing its timeliness.

*Affirmed without prejudice.*

May, Damoorgian and Forst, JJ., concur.
Elaine VEGA, Appellant, v. SAINT JOHN XXIII CATHOLIC CHURCH and Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission, Appellees.

No. 4D18-2313

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

September 26, 2018

Elaine Vega, Pembroke Pine, pro se.

Cristina A. Velez, Tallahassee, for appellee Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed. See* Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a).

Ciklin, Forst and Kuntz, JJ., concur.
# C_2020361EN.01000201.xml

| 27.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 361/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 361/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9939 — Sampo/RMI/Hastings)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 361/02)

On 21 October 2020, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9939. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9939. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains editorial corrections of previously

published Presidential, Rule, Proposed Rule,

and Notice documents. These corrections are

prepared by the Office of the Federal

Register. Agency prepared corrections are

issued as signed documents and appear in

the appropriate document categories

elsewhere in the issue.

Corrections Federal Register

45910

Vol. 63, No. 166

Thursday, August 27, 1998

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 1

[Gen. Docket 86-285, FCC 98-87]

Schedule of Application Fees

Correction

In rule document 98–21371 beginning

on page 42735 in the issue of Tuesday,

August 11, 1998, make the following

correction:

§ 1.1104 [Corrected]

On page 42744, in §1.1104, under

‘‘Fee Amount’’, in the third entry ‘‘690’’

should read ‘‘725’’.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 48

[T.D. 8774]

RIN 1545–AW15

Kerosene Tax; Aviation Fuel Tax; Tax

on Heavy Trucks and Trailers

Correction

In rule document 98–17400 beginning

on page 35799 in the issue of

Wednesday, July 1, 1998, make the

following corrections:

§ 48.4082–8T [Corrected]

1. On page 35802, in the second

column, the first paragraph should read,

‘‘Name, address, and employer

identification number of seller

llllll (‘‘Buyer’’)

Name of Buyer

certifies the following under penalties of

perjury:’’.

§ 48.6427–11T [Corrected]

2. On page 35804, in the second

column, in § 48.6427–11T, in paragraph

(c)(4), the fourth line should read

‘‘paragraph (e) of this section’’.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
Amendment to Guaranty Agreement



 Exhibit 10.21(b) 
 AMENDMENT TO GUARANTY AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT TO GUARANTY AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”),
is dated for reference purposes July 12, 2007, and is by and between TOM T. O’KEEFE (“Guarantor”), and BENAROYA CAPITAL COMPANY, L.L.C., a Washington limited liability company (“Lender”). 
 WITNESSETH: 
 A. Tully’s
Coffee Corporation, a Washington corporation (“Borrower”), has obtained a loan in the principal amount of Four Million and 00/100 Dollars ($4,000,000.00) (the “Loan”) from Lender. 
 B. Guarantor has executed that certain Guaranty Agreement dated April 25, 2007 (the “Guaranty”). All words defined in the Guaranty that
begin with a capital letter in this Amendment shall have the same meaning in this Amendment as in the Guaranty. 
 C. Borrower and Lender
have agreed to increase the loan evidenced by the Note to up to $10,000,000.00, and to extend the “Maturity Date” (as defined in the Note) and Borrower and Lender have executed that certain Amendment to Secured Promissory Note and Security
Agreement of even date herewith (the “Amendment to Note”). 
 NOW, THEREFORE, to induce Lender to amend the Loan and in
consideration of the foregoing and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Lender and Guarantor hereby amends the Guaranty as follows: 
 1. The amount of the Loan and the Note as set forth in the Guaranty are hereby amended to read Ten Million and 00/100 Dollars ($10,000,000.00). By his
execution of this Amendment, Guarantor hereby (a) approves the increase in the amount of the Loan and the extension of the Maturity Date, (b) agrees that nothing contained in the Amendment to Note shall in any way terminate or amend his
guaranty, (c) subordinates his security interest in the Collateral (as defined in the Security Agreement) to the security interest of Holder which secures repayment of the Note, as amended by the Amendment to Note, and (d) agrees that
Guarantor is guaranteeing Maker’s repayment of the Note as increased by the Amendment to Note. 
 2. Except as set forth in this
Amendment, the Guaranty shall remain in full force and effect as originally executed by Guarantor. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Guarantor has executed this
Amendment as of the day and year first above written. 
  

	
	 /s/ Tom T. O’Keefe

	Tom T. O’Keefe
**EXHIBIT 23.0**

**Consent ofIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of DirectorsWillow Financial Bancorp, Inc.:

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.333-87214, 333-110464 and 333-128185) on Form S-8of Willow Financial Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiary of our reports dated September 25,2006, with respect to the consolidated statements of financial condition ofWillow Financial Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiary as of June 30, 2006 and2005, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes instockholders’ equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of theyears in the three-year period ended June 30, 2006, management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting asof June 30, 2006 and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting as of June 30, 2006, which reports appear in the June 30,2006 annual report on Form 10-K of Willow Financial Bancorp, Inc.
| /s/ KPMG LLP            |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Philadelphia, PA        |
| September 25, 2006 |

 

----
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 10, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 99261]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-28908]

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

FEDERAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS EXAMINATION COUNCIL

[Docket No. AS24-27]

Appraisal Subcommittee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions 
Examination Council.

ACTION: Notice of special meeting.

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

    Description: In accordance with section 1104(b) of title XI of the 
Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, 
codified at 12 U.S.C. 3333(b), notice is hereby given that the 
Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) met for a Special Meeting on this date.
    Location: Virtual meeting via Teams.
    Date: November 13, 2024.
    Time: 11:50 a.m. ET.

Action and Discussion Item

Personnel Matter

    The ASC convened a Special Meeting to discuss and take a vote on a 
personnel matter.

Loretta Schuster,
Management & Program Analyst.
[FR Doc. 2024-28908 Filed 12-9-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6700-01-P
```