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 Quarterly Report of MHI Hospitality Corporation (the Corporation) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Andrew M. Sims, Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, 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 the Corporation.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |        |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: August 10, 2010 |  |  |  |        |  |                                      
|                      |  |  | 
|                      |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ Andrew M. Sims                   
|                      |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Andrew M. Sims                       
|                      |  |  |  | Title: |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
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 quarterly report of Alchemy Enterprises, Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Harold Sciotto, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Harold Sciotto

Harold Sciotto

Chief Executive Officer

August 22, 2005



/s/ Harold Sciotto

Harold Sciotto

Chief Financial Officer

August 22, 2005
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

VS.

SCOTT G. SANDERS,

Defendant.

)

)

)

) CRIMINAL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:04-CR-300-G

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the court is the response of Scott Sanders (“the defendant”) to the

presentence report (“PSR”) prepared by the United States Probation Office. 

Defense’s Response to the Presentence Report (“Defendant’s Objections to PSR”). 

Defendant raises several objections to the PSR. See generally Defendant’s Objections

to PSR. Among his objections, the defendant objects to three separate two-level

increases in his offense level. These objections are based on his mental competency. 

Id. at 4. The defendant asserts that he has undergone a psychological evaluation by

Dr. Beaty. Id. at 5. The defendant states that “Dr. Beaty opines that the defendant

was unable to recognize the criminality of his actions or appreciate the wrongfulness

 

 Case 3:04-cr-00300-G Document 53 Filed 10/19/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 254
- 2 -

of his conduct during the time that he was committing the acts that form the basis of

his conviction.”

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241, it is therefore ORDERED that a hearing to

determine the competency of the defendant shall be held before the undersigned at

1100 Commerce Street, Courtroom 1525, Dallas, Texas 75242 on Tuesday,

November 1, 2005, at 9:00 a.m.

It is further ORDERED that, in the event that after this hearing the defendant

is found to be competent, the sentencing of the defendant shall commence

immediately following the mental competency hearing. 

October 19, 2005.

 

 Case 3:04-cr-00300-G Document 53 Filed 10/19/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 255
EX PARTE Samuel J. MITCHELL

1160858 (CR-16-0277)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

August 11, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ANTOINE MOUTON,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-10255

D.C. No. 3:12-cr-00049-RCJ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 25, 2014** 

Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Antoine Mouton appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges a

special condition of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea

conviction for failure to register as a sex offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 2250(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate in part and

FILED

JUN 27 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
remand for further proceedings.

Mouton challenges the special condition of supervised release that prohibits

him from associating with any minors, including his own daughter, without

supervision and prior approval from the probation officer. The government

concedes that the portion of the condition relating to Mouton’s daughter must be

stricken and may not be reimposed upon remand in light of our decision in United

States v. Wolf Child, 699 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2012). We agree and, accordingly,

remand for the district court to strike the portion of the condition restricting

Mouton’s association with his daughter. 

Mouton also challenges the condition as it relates to his association with

other minors. The government concedes that this portion of the condition is

overbroad and must be vacated. We agree. See id. at 1101-02. We vacate and

remand for the district court to determine whether that portion of the condition is

warranted and, if so, to devise a condition that restricts Mouton’s liberty no more

than is reasonably necessary to meet the statutory purposes of deterrence,

protection of the public, and rehabilitation. See id. at 1102.

VACATED in part and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent

with this disposition.

2 13-10255
Case 2:05-cv-00113-J Document 19 Filed 12/01/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 57
Exhibit
10.14
    PAGESECTION 1.
    
    Purpose
    
    
    1SECTION 2.
    
    Definitions; Rules of Construction
    
    
    1SECTION 3.
    
    Eligibility
    
    
    3SECTION 4.
    
    Awards
    
    
    3SECTION 5.
    
    Shares of Stock and Share Units Available Under Plan
    
    
    6SECTION 6.
    
    Award Agreements
    
    
    8SECTION 7.
    
    Adjustments; Change in Control; Acquisitions
    
    
    11SECTION 8.
    
    Administration
    
    
    14SECTION 9.
    
    Amendment and Termination of this Plan
    
    
    16SECTION 10.
    
    Miscellaneous
    
    
    16




---



##### 








---



##### 



2




---



##### 



3




---



##### 



4




---



##### 



5




---



##### 



6




---



##### 



7




---



##### 



8




---



##### 



9




---



##### 



10




---



##### 



11




---



##### 



12




---



##### 



13




---



##### 



14




---



##### 



15




---



##### 



16




---



##### 



17
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 223 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 223

 To prohibit funding for the implementation and enforcement of Federal 
                            red flag orders.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 2025

 Mr. Crenshaw introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit funding for the implementation and enforcement of Federal 
                            red flag orders.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Preventing Unjust Red Flag Laws Act 
of 2025''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF 
              RED FLAG LAWS OR RULES.

    (a) Prohibition on Funding.--None of the funds made available for 
any Federal department or agency may be used to--
            (1) implement or enforce Federal red flag laws; or
            (2) provide assistance to States, local, tribal, or 
        territorial government departments or agencies for the 
        implementation or enforcement of red flag laws.
    (b) Red Flag Law Defined.--In this section, the term ``red flag 
law'' means a risk-based, temporary, and preemptive protective order 
that authorizes the removal of a firearm without due process.
                                 <all>
```
DeAngelo Ramone HOLLOWAY v. STATE

CR-16-0474

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Case 3:05-cv-00029-H Document 9 Filed 06/21/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 196
Case 23-20086-7    Doc 1    Filed 04/28/23    Entered 04/28/23 16:06:25    Desc MainDocument      Page 1 of 19

Case 23-20086-7    Doc 1    Filed 04/28/23    Entered 04/28/23 16:06:25    Desc MainDocument      Page 2 of 19

Case 23-20086-7    Doc 1    Filed 04/28/23    Entered 04/28/23 16:06:25    Desc MainDocument      Page 3 of 19

Case 23-20086-7    Doc 1    Filed 04/28/23    Entered 04/28/23 16:06:25    Desc MainDocument      Page 4 of 19

Case 23-20086-7    Doc 1    Filed 04/28/23    Entered 04/28/23 16:06:25    Desc MainDocument      Page 5 of 19

Case 23-20086-7    Doc 1    Filed 04/28/23    Entered 04/28/23 16:06:25    Desc MainDocument      Page 6 of 19

Case 23-20086-7    Doc 1    Filed 04/28/23    Entered 04/28/23 16:06:25    Desc MainDocument      Page 7 of 19

Case 23-20086-7    Doc 1    Filed 04/28/23    Entered 04/28/23 16:06:25    Desc MainDocument      Page 8 of 19

Case 23-20086-7    Doc 1    Filed 04/28/23    Entered 04/28/23 16:06:25    Desc MainDocument      Page 9 of 19

Case 23-20086-7    Doc 1    Filed 04/28/23    Entered 04/28/23 16:06:25    Desc MainDocument      Page 10 of 19

Case 23-20086-7    Doc 1    Filed 04/28/23    Entered 04/28/23 16:06:25    Desc MainDocument      Page 11 of 19

Case 23-20086-7    Doc 1    Filed 04/28/23    Entered 04/28/23 16:06:25    Desc MainDocument      Page 12 of 19

Case 23-20086-7    Doc 1    Filed 04/28/23    Entered 04/28/23 16:06:25    Desc MainDocument      Page 13 of 19

Case 23-20086-7    Doc 1    Filed 04/28/23    Entered 04/28/23 16:06:25    Desc MainDocument      Page 14 of 19

Case 23-20086-7    Doc 1    Filed 04/28/23    Entered 04/28/23 16:06:25    Desc MainDocument      Page 15 of 19

Case 23-20086-7    Doc 1    Filed 04/28/23    Entered 04/28/23 16:06:25    Desc MainDocument      Page 16 of 19

Case 23-20086-7    Doc 1    Filed 04/28/23    Entered 04/28/23 16:06:25    Desc MainDocument      Page 17 of 19

Case 23-20086-7    Doc 1    Filed 04/28/23    Entered 04/28/23 16:06:25    Desc MainDocument      Page 18 of 19

Case 23-20086-7    Doc 1    Filed 04/28/23    Entered 04/28/23 16:06:25    Desc MainDocument      Page 19 of 19
EXHIBIT 32.2

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with this Report on Form 10-Q of
Foundation Coal Holdings, Inc. for the period ended March 31, 2008, I, Frank J. Wood, Chief Financial Officer of Foundation Coal Holdings, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|1. | This Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 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 this Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Foundation Coal Holdings, Inc.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |  |  |                        
|----------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 9, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ FRANK J. WOOD      
|                  |  |  |  | Frank J. Wood          
|                  |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
Alvin K. HERRON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4908

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 5, 2019 Rehearing Denied April 10, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
U.S. DISTRICT G
0 R \ G \ N AL NORTHERN DISTRICT OF PEXAS
FRED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF THXAS OCT | 2 2007

DALLAS DIVISION
Sent

SAMUEL CHAVEZ, ID # 929860, ) “a — POO oemr

Petitioner, ) eputy
vs. ) No. 3:04-CV-2242-M

) ECF

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director, )
Texas Department of Criminal )
Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, )

Respondent. )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclu-
sions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge; the objections raised thereto; the
Supplemental Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge;
and any objections thereto, and conducting a de novo review of those parts of the Findings and
Conclusions to which objections have been made, I am of the opinion that the Findings and Conclu-
sions of the Magistrate Judge, as supplemented, are correct and they are accepted as the Findings and
Conclusions of the Court.

SO ORDERED this | day of Octobe C 2007.

hou

UNIVED STATES DISTRICEIODGE
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 3988]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00678]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Delegation of Authority No. 567]

Delegation of Authority--Authorities of the Under Secretary for 
Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment

ACTION: Delegation of authority.

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

SUMMARY: The State Department is publishing a Delegation of Authority 
signed by the Secretary of State on December 20, 2024.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State, 
signed the following ``Delegation of Authority--Authorities of the 
Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment'' on 
December 20, 2024. The State Department maintains the original 
document.
    (Begin text.)

Delegation of Authority--Authorities of the Under Secretary for 
Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment

    By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State by the 
laws of the United States, including section 1(a)(4) of the State 
Department Basic Authorities Act (22 U.S.C. 2651a(a)(4)), I hereby 
delegate to Geoffrey R. Pyatt, to the extent authorized by law, all 
authorities vested in or delegated to the Under Secretary for Economic 
Growth, Energy, and the Environment by any act, order, determination, 
delegation of authority, regulation, or executive order, now or 
hereafter issued.
    The Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Deputy Secretary for Management 
and Resources, and the Under Secretary for Management may exercise any 
function or authority delegated herein. This delegation of authority 
does not modify any other delegation of authority currently in effect.
    This delegation will be effective on January 10, 2025, and will 
expire upon the entry upon duty of a confirmed Under Secretary for 
Economic Growth Energy, and the Environment unless sooner revoked and 
shall be published in the Federal Register.
    (End text.)

Zachary A. Parker,
Director, Office of Organizational Policy, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2025-00678 Filed 1-14-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
```
EX PARTE Glennarius Antwuan BALDWIN

1160868

Supreme Court of Alabama.

August 11, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

BONIFACE O. ODOR; JACINTA I. ODOR, 

Petitioners,

v.  No. 02-1858 U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION

SERVICE; JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney

General,

Respondents. 

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

(A74-626-452, A74-626-453)

Submitted: March 10, 2003

Decided: March 20, 2003

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Rev. Uduak J. Ubom, UBOM, WHITE & ROBERTS, Washington,

D.C., for Petitioners. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney

General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Virginia M. Lum,

Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Boniface O. Odor and Jacinta I. Odor, husband and wife and

natives and citizens of Nigeria, seek review of a decision of the Board

of Immigration Appeals ("Board") affirming the immigration judge’s

("IJ") denial of their applications for asylum and withholding of

deportation. We have reviewed the administrative record, the Board’s

order and the IJ’s decision and find substantial evidence supports the

Board’s conclusion that the Odors failed to establish a well-founded

fear of persecution necessary to qualify for relief from deportation.

See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b) (2002). We have reviewed the IJ’s credibility determinations and conclude that they are supported by specific,

cogent reasoning, and therefore are entitled to substantial deference.

Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989). We conclude that the

record supports the Board’s conclusion that the Odors failed to establish their eligibility for asylum. 

The standard for receiving withholding of deportation is "more

stringent than that for asylum eligibility." Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198,

205 (4th Cir. 1999). An applicant for withholding must demonstrate

a clear probability of persecution. INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S.

421, 430 (1987). As the Odors have failed to establish refugee status,

they cannot satisfy the higher standard for withholding of deportation.

We accordingly deny the petition for review. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED

2 ODOR v. INS
Case 3:05-cv-00941-M Document 5 Filed 08/12/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 22
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ICHARD GERMAN ROBINSON, )

ID # 819174, )

Petitioner, )

vs. ) No. 3:05-CV-0874-N

 ) ECF

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, )

Texas Department of Criminal )

Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, )

Respondent. )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the

Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings

and Conclusions of the Court.

SIGNED June 16, 2006.

 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00874-N Document 20 Filed 06/16/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 90
#### C. H. Perry, *Appellant,*v. Fairbanks, Morse & Company, a Corporation, *Appellee.*

Division B.

Decision Filed November 7, 1927.

*Hudson*and *Cason,*for Appellant;

*Martin H. Long,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected-, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
L.L.T. v. STATE

CR-16-0925

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

Affirmed.
# C_2017053EN.01003501.xml

| 20.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/35

---

Action brought on 5 December 2016 — RF v Commission

(Case T-880/16)

(2017/C 053/44)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: RF (Gdynia, Poland) (represented by: K. Komar-Komarowski, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2016)5925 final of 15 September 2016 rejecting the complaint in case COMP AT.40251 — Rail transport, freight forwarding, and remit the case back to the Commission for re-examination; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2016)5925 final of 15 September 2016 rejecting the complaint in case COMP AT.40251 — Rail transport, freight forwarding, and remit the case back to the Commission for re-examination;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1) through misinterpretation or possible misapplication thereof. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1) through misinterpretation or possible misapplication thereof.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 105(1) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 105(1) TFEU.

---
EX PARTE James ROBINSON

CR-16-1214

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Habeas corpus pet. dismissed.