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


                   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR


                      RULE 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,


                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report of American Capital Partners Limited,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, C. Frank Speight, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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.


Date: November 19, 2004             By: /s/ C. Frank Speight
                                        --------------------

                                            C. Frank Speight
                                            Principal Executive Officer
Patrick Michael CORDERO-CALLAHAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2802

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[November 8, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Miguel AVILA, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-3869

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

November 15, 2018 Rehearing Denied December 10, 2018

Miguel Avila, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

DISMISSED . *See**Baker v. State* , 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

Ray, Kelsey, and Jay, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the following Registration Statements:



| |  |  | Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-136200) of Inergy Holdings, L.P.,
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-131769) of Inergy Holdings, L.P., and
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-128027) of Inergy Holdings, L.P.
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------

of our reports dated November 30, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Inergy Holdings, L.P. and Subsidiaries, Inergy Holdings, L.P. and Subsidiaries managements assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Inergy Holdings, L.P. and Subsidiaries, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
September 30, 2006.

/s/    ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Kansas City, Missouri

November 30, 2006
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Russell C. Horowitz, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Marchex, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Marchex, Inc.



|                      |  |        |  |                           
|--------------------- |  | ------ |  | --------------------------
|Dated: March 14, 2011 |  | By:    |  | /s/    RUSSELL C.
HOROWITZ
|                      |  | Name:  |  | Russell C. Horowitz       
|                      |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 934 

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act related to a segment of the 

Lower Merced River in California, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 4, 2013 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK (for himself, Mr. COSTA, Mr. DENHAM, Mr. NUNES, Mr. 

VALADAO, Mr. MCCARTHY of California, and Mr. LAMALFA) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act related to a 

segment of the Lower Merced River in California, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. LOWER MERCED RIVER. 

4 (a) WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT.—Section 

5 3(a)(62)(B)(i) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 

6 U.S.C. 1274(a)(62)(B)(i)) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘the normal maximum’’ the first 

8 place that it appears and all that follows through 

9 ‘‘April, 1990.’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘the 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 934 IH

1 boundary of FERC Project No. 2179 as it existed 

2 on February 15, 2013, consisting of a point approxi3 mately 2,480 feet downstream of the confluence with 

4 the North Fork of the Merced River, consisting of 

5 approximately 7.4 miles.’’; and 

6 (2) by striking ‘‘the normal maximum operating 

7 pool water surface level of Lake McClure’’ the sec8 ond place that it appears and inserting ‘‘the bound9 ary of FERC Project No. 2179 as it existed on Feb10 ruary 15, 2013, consisting of a point approximately 

11 2,480 feet downstream of the confluence with the 

12 North Fork of the Merced River’’. 

13 (b) EXCHEQUER PROJECT.—Section 3 of Public Law 

14 102–432 is amended by striking ‘‘Act:’’ and all that fol15 lows through the period and inserting ‘‘Act.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.0



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Jefferson Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), the undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as added by 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 as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Anderson L. SmithAnderson L. SmithPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Jane P. HuttonJane P. HuttonChief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary




Date: September 9, 2005
**Exhibit31.1**

 

I, Charles R. Poole, certify that:

 

1.  I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of GlobalSCAPE, Inc.;

 

2.  Based on my knowledge, thisquarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

 

3.  Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in thisquarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

4.  The registrant’s othercertifying officers 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

 

b)  evaluated the effectivenessof the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”);  and

 

c) presented in this quarterly report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and proceduresbased on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

 

5.  The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s boardof directors (or person performing the equivalent function):

 

a)  all significant deficienciesin the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialdata and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknessesin internal controls; and

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal controls;

and

 

6.  The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether ornot there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factorsthat could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of ourmost recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard tosignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

 
|   | Date: November 12, 2004          |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   |                                  |
|   |                                  |
|   | /s/ Charles R. Poole                  |   |
|   | Charles R. Poole                      |
|   | President and Chief Operating Officer |

 

1

----
Theresa BATSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2906

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

November 1, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
---

Exhibit 32.1

|CERTIFICATION                                
|---------------------------------------------
|PURSUANT TO                                  
|SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
|(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)                     

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of
Turinco, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the
Quarterly Report), Michael Jervis, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
does hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C. Section 1350) that, to his knowledge:

|(1) | the Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

| | By:    | /s/
      *Michael Jervis*
| | ------ | --------------------------
| | Name:  | Michael Jervis            
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer   
| | Date:  | December 13, 2005         

This written statement is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Companys Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

---
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 7/2/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

JAMES ALTON FORD, SR.,

Petitioner - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee. No. 95-6366 (D. Ct. No. CIV-95-894-C) (W. D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This appeal is from an order of the district court dismissing pro se petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner appeals on the ground that the district court erred in refusing to grant the writ of habeas corpus under the circumstances of this case. We decline a certificate of appealability.- 2 -

Petitioner’s claims for post-conviction relief all relate to his alleged right to have his federal sentence run concurrently with state sentences and related alleged right to be incarcerated in a federal facility. None of these claims challenge the validity of the federal detainer that has been placed on defendant. We therefore agree with the district court that petitioner is not entitled to relief and that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was properly denied. Under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), we are required to examine the appeal of the denial of a petition for habeas corpus to determine whether it alleges sufficient denial of constitutional rights. This petition for a writ of habeas corpus clearly does not sufficiently allege any denial of a constitutional right. Lennox v. Evans , No. 96-6041, 1996 WL 343632 (10th Cir. 1996). We therefore decline the certificate of appealability. Appeal DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Deanell Reece Tacha Circuit Judge
Harry Lee GOOD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1173

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed October 30, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 35.1



ANNUAL COMPLIANCE
CERTIFICATE



GE Consumer Finance, Inc. (the “Servicer”)
hereby certifies as of December 31, 2012 as follows:



| | 1. | The undersigned has reviewed, for the period beginning January 1, 2012 and ending December 31, 2012 (the “Reporting
Period”): (a) the activities of the Servicer as they related to the Subservicing Agreement, dated as of September 3,
2006, between the Servicer and General Electric Capital Corporation (the “Subservicing Agreement”) and (b) the
Servicer’s performance under the Subservicing Agreement. Such review of the activities of the Servicer and the performance
by the Servicer of its obligations under the Subservicing Agreement has been made by persons under the direct supervision of the
undersigned.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best knowledge of the undersigned, based on my review of the Servicer’s performance under the Subservicing Agreement,
the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Subservicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting
Period.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This report is delivered pursuant
to Item 1123 of Regulation AB.











| | GE CONSUMER FINANCE, INC.
| | -------------------------
| |                          
| | By:                      
| | Name: Brian Doubles      
| | Title: Vice President    



GECFI Annual Compliance Certificate
**Exhibit 31.1**

CERTIFICATIONS 

I, James R Morris, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of GlobalSCAPE, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cashflows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: November 13, 2008
Eric Laquinne BROWN a/k/a Eric L. Brown a/k/a Eric Brown, Appellant v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee

NO. 2017-CP-00620-COA

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

May 22, 2018 Rehearing Denied September 4, 2018

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ERIC LAQUINNE BROWN (PRO SE)

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JOSEPH SCOTT HEMLEBEN

BEFORE LEE, C.J., CARLTON, FAIR AND WESTBROOKS, JJ.

FAIR, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶ 1. In 1999, Eric Brown pled guilty to killing his girlfriend and their unborn child. This is his fifth motion for post-conviction relief. Brown contends that under *Sanders v. State* , 9 So.3d 1132, 1136 (¶ 16) (Miss. 2009), he should not have been allowed to plead guilty without an on-the-record competency hearing. He has raised this issue before, and we found Brown's claims time- and successive-writ barred because *Sanders* does not apply retroactively. *Brown v. State* , 198 So.3d 325, 325 (¶ 1) (Miss. Ct. App. 2015). For the same reasons as before, we affirm the dismissal of this latest PCR motion.

¶ 2. **AFFIRMED.**

LEE, C.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., BARNES, CARLTON, WILSON, GREENLEE, WESTBROOKS AND TINDELL, JJ., CONCUR.
STATE of Louisiana v. Karl HOWARD

NO. 2018-KO-0165

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

November 20, 2018

Denied.
Michael D. GRIGGS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1245

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed November 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

RASSAN JOHNSON,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 484 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 25th day of February, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earth

Filters

              - products_publications(1)
              - multimedia_image(1)
              - multimedia_image-141771(1)
              - multimedia_video(3)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149195(3)

## By Location

              - alaska(12)
              - arizona(8)
              - california(17)
              - colorado(5)
              - (-)connecticut(3)
              - delaware(3)
              - district of columbia(2)
              - florida(8)
              - georgia(4)
              - hawaii(13)
              - idaho(3)
              - kansas(4)
              - kentucky(1)
              - louisiana(3)
              - maine(2)
              - maryland(3)
              - massachusetts(6)
              - minnesota(1)
              - mississippi(3)
              - montana(4)
              - nebraska(1)
              - nevada(3)
              - new hampshire(1)
              - new jersey(4)
              - new mexico(1)
              - new york(4)
              - north carolina(4)
              - north dakota(1)
              - ohio(1)
              - oregon(2)
              - pennsylvania(1)
              - puerto rico(1)
              - rhode island(2)
              - south carolina(3)
              - south dakota(47)
              - texas(5)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - utah(2)
              - virginia(6)
              - washington(2)
              - west virginia(1)
              - wisconsin(1)
              - wyoming(11)

## By Year

Featured Films and Shorts        April 8, 2024        USGS Northeast Region: The Short Story

Featured Films and Shorts        August 28, 2017        Image of the Week: Gypsy Moth Infestation Continues in New England

Featured Films and Shorts        September 30, 2017        USGS Hurricane Preparedness
Rakeem BLOCK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1372

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed August 7, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.