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



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF ACR GROUP, INC. 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 ACR Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending
November 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alex Trevino, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to my knowledge 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/ Alex Trevino, Jr.Alex Trevino, Jr.Chief Executive OfficerJanuary 14, 2005




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section
906, has been provided to ACR Group, Inc. and will be retained by ACR Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to
the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### Shawn ALLICOCK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General; James W. Ziglar, Commissioner, Immigration & Naturalization Service; J. McElroy, New York District Director; Caryl Thompson, Oakdale Acting District Director; Immigration and Naturalization Service; United States Department of Justice, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 03-2413.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 5, 2004.

Shawn Allicock, Oakdale, LA (on submission), for Petitioner, pro se.

Kristen Chapman, Assistant United States Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Roslynn R. Mauskopf, United States Attorney, and Varuni Nelson) (on submission), for Respondents, of counsel.

Present: JACOBS, STRAUB, and WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

Shawn Allicock appeals from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Korman, /.), dismissing his habeas petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Familiarity is assumed as to the facts, the procedural context, and the specification of appellate issues.

This Court reviews *de novo*the district court’s dismissal of a habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. *Kuhali v. Reno,*266 F.3d 93, 99 (2d Cir.2001). We affirm for substantially the reasons referenced by the district court.

We are aware that the district court has stayed Allicock’s final order of removal, pending its decision on a subsequent habeas petition. Our affirmance of the district court’s dismissal of the instant petition does not foreclose the district court’s consideration of that petition.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
FEDERAL

DEPOSIT

INSURANCE

CORPORATION

2 0 1 4 

ANNUAL 

REPORT
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Del Taco Restaurant Properties I;
 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 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and 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 we 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 registrant, 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 registrant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; andc)
    
    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 to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and




---



##### 



5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our 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 equivalent
function):
 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 registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; anda)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial
reporting.
 Date: August 15, 2005
    
    /s/ Kevin K. MoriartyKevin K. MoriartyDirector, Chairman andChief Executive Officer
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27503-27504]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12637]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket Nos. RP95-298-000 and RP95-31-007]

National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Tariff Filing

May 18, 1995.
    Take notice that on May 15, 1995, National Fuel Gas Supply 
Corporation (National) tendered for filing, as a limited application 
under Section 4 of the Natural Gas Act, its filing to comply with the 
May 8, 1995 letter order and the Commission's April 12, 1995 order 
issued in these proceedings. These orders required that National 
allocate transmission costs either to all of its storage services or to 
none, and that National explain how its tariff sheets meet the 
Commission's objectives.
    National has filed as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised 
Volume No. 1, the following primary tariff sheets reflecting the 
assignment of transmission costs to all of its firm storage services, 
with a proposed effective date of June 1, 1995:

Tenth Revised Sheet No. 5
Third Revised Sheet No. 5A
Ninth Revised Sheet No. 6
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 6A

    National is also filing first and second alternative sets of tariff 
sheets.
    National further states that it has included the relevant 
workpapers setting forth National's cost-of-service used to develop the 
rates included in its filing.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426, in accordance with the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure. All such motions to intervene or protests should be filed on 
or before May 25, 1995. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the [[Page 27504]] Commission and are available for 
public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-12637 Filed 5-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:14-CR-29

)

MICHAEL R. EBERLE )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules

of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Roger B. Cosbey,

on October 29, 2014, with the written consents of the defendant, counsel for the defendant, and

counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by the defendant under oath on

the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney and

of counsel for defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that defendant understands the nature of the charge against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that the defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and
his right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that the defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by the defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and

is not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(5) that defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that the defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for the defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept the defendant’s plea of guilty and that the

Defendant be adjudged guilty of the offense charged in Count 1 of the two-count Indictment, and

have sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Report and

Recommendation be accepted and the Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled

before Judge Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the Findings

and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 29th day of October, 2014.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2
Jevern PHILIP, petitioner, v. TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS.

No. 13-6987.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands denied.
CRAIG S., petitioner, v. DONNA S.

No. 13-6724.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, First Judicial Department, denied.
#### SMITH, Appellant, v. SUN PRINTING & PUB. ASS'N, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Division, First Department.

June 6, 1913.)

Action by George _H. Smith against the ®uu Printing & Publishing Association. D. City, for appellant. C. A' Mead, of New York City, for respondent,

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs Order filed. See, also, 141 N. Y. Supp. 1145.
Melvin DUMEY, petitioner, v. KISSIMMEE UTILITY AUTHORITY.

No. 13-5731.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
#### In the Matter of Sheldon Kleeger, an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, Petitioner.

Second Department,

July 1, 1985

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Robert H. Straus (Diana L. Maxfield*of counsel), for petitioner.

*D'Amato & Lynch (Robert E. Meshel*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice by this court on December 18, 1963. On February 23, 1985 respondent pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the charge of bribery of an Internal Revenue agent in violation of 18 USC § 201 (b). On February 28, 1985 respondent was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment and fined $10,000. The imposition of the prison term was suspended and respondent was placed on three years’ probation. As a condition of the probation, respondent was to perform 160 hours of community service during each year of the probationary period.

This Federal felony is cognizable in New York as bribery in the second degree (Penal Law § 200.00), a class D felony *(see, Matter of Rosenberg,*83 AD2d 375; *Matter of Phillips,*100 AD2d 69).

*138Pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4), upon his conviction of a felony, the respondent ceased to be an attorney and counselor-at-law in this State.

Accordingly, the petitioner’s motion is granted. Respondent is disbarred and the clerk of this court is directed to strike the respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law forthwith. The relief sought by respondent is denied.

Mollen, P.J., Lazer, Mangano, Gibbons and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
Quitman CARTER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10394.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Steven Andrew JANDA, petitioner, v. WASHINGTON.

No. 13-18.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1730 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1730

To reinstate the authority of the Federal Communications Commission and 
     local franchising authorities to regulate the rates for cable 
                          television service.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 20, 2005

  Mr. Frank of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To reinstate the authority of the Federal Communications Commission and 
     local franchising authorities to regulate the rates for cable 
                          television service.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    The Act may be cited as the ``Cable Consumer Rights Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL.

    Subsection (b) of section 301 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 
is repealed.

SEC. 3. REINSTATEMENT OF PRIOR LAW.

    Section 623 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 543) shall 
be effective as if section 301(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 
had not been enacted.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The provisions of this Act shall take effect 90 days after the date 
of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Insurance Program for Elected Officers of Motorola



  
 Exhibit 10.23 
  
 Description of insurance program for Elected Officers of Motorola, Inc.

  
 Elected officers (“Officers”) of Motorola, Inc.
(“Motorola” or “Company”) are eligible to participate in an insurance program which provides life insurance coverage for Officers throughout their Officer career at Motorola. For Officers elected on or before 12/31/03, coverage
continues after the Officer’s retirement provided the Officer is 55 and has 5 years of service at the time of retirement. For Officers elected after 12/31/03, there is no post-retirement coverage provided by the Company. 
  
 Under the program for Officers elected prior to January 1, 2004, the Company purchased a
policy of life insurance on the Officer’s life. Pursuant to an endorsement split-dollar agreement entered into between the Company and the Officer, the Company pays the insurance premiums for the policy during the Officer’s career and
qualified retirement from Motorola. The amount of coverage is based on a fixed multiple of salary that declines over time. The Company retains all incidents of ownership and privileges in the policy but the Officer has the right to designate the
beneficiaries and to elect an income settlement option with respect to a portion of the death proceeds in an amount determined by a fixed formula and the right to assign his or her interest in the policy. The Company shall have all the rights to the
cash values and to the balance of the death proceeds not paid to the Officer’s beneficiaries. 
  
 Group Variable Universal Life (GVUL) will be used to provide coverage to Officers elected after 12/31/03. The Officer, who will designate his/her beneficiaries, will own the policy. The Company pays the insurance
premiums during the Officer’s career. The amount of coverage is a fixed multiple of salary that remains constant. This insurance coverage may be terminated by either the Company or the Officer and shall automatically terminate on the
termination of the Officer’s employment (except in certain circumstances of retirement) or non-payment of the premium by the Company.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF ACR GROUP, INC. 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 ACR Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
August 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Anthony R. Maresca, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to my knowledge 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/ Anthony R. MarescaAnthony R. Maresca Chief Financial Officer October 15, 2004




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section
906, has been provided to ACR Group, Inc. and will be retained by ACR Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to
the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### Mary Ann PECKHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gale A. NORTON, Secretary, Department of the Interior, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-14364.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 27, 2006.

Gerald Cunningham, Gulf Breeze, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Mary Christine Roemer, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appel-lee.

*928Before CARNES, PRYOR and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In this consolidated appeal, appellant-plaintiff Mary Ann Peckham (Peckham) appeals (1) the grant by the district court of summary judgment in favor of Gale A. Norton, Secretary of the Department of the Interior (DOI), and (2) the district court’s affirmance of the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), upholding her termination by the National Park Service. In so doing, the district court found against Peckham (1) on her claims of sex discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1864, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, *et seq.,*and (2) against the merits system non-discrimination component of her case under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Pub.L. No. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1111, 5 U.S.C. §§ 2302(b), 7701 and 7703(c), as being proeedurally improper.

After carefully reviewing the record on appeal, and reading the parties’ briefs, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of DOI and also its affirmance of the MSPB, based on the well-reasoned Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge dated April 27, 2005, and the judgment of the district court adopting the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge, dismissing Peckham’s action dated June 6, 2005.

AFFIRMED.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JUMEL FILIAS

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 2444

[ January 13, 2022 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County ; Sherwood Bauer, Jr.

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 01

- 586CFA

.

Jumel Filias, Crestview, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, M AY and G ERBER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The
undersigned, Xiao Ping Zhang, Chief Executive Officer of SORL AUTO PARTS, INC.,
and Zong Yun Zhou, Chief Financial Officer of SORL AUTO PARTS, INC., certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of SORL AUTO PARTS,
INC. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2009 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 Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition
and results of operations of SORL AUTO PARTS, INC.




Dated:
      May 13, 2009/s/
      Xiao Ping ZhangXiao
      Ping Zhang
                Chief
      Executive Officer/s/
      Zong Yun ZhouZong
      Yun ZhouChief
      Financial Officer
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 13, 2018.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, September 13, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19I0024. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES et al. v. BRANDI MUFF 

et al..

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

16CV666