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


This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and accompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-K (the "Form 10-K") for the
year ended August 31, 2010 of Castmor Resources Ltd. (the "Issuer").  The
undersigned hereby certifies that the Form 10-K fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Form
10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Issuer.


Date: March 24, 2011

By /s/ Alfonso Quijada
Alfonso Quijada
Chief Executive Officer, President,
Chief Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 3881]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-1279]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation and Liability Act

    In accordance with the policy of the Department of Justice, 28 CFR 
50.7, and 42 U.S.C. 9622(d)(2)(B), notice is hereby given that a 
proposed Fourth Partial Consent Decree in United States v. City of 
Monterey Park, et al., Civil Action No. 94-8685 KN, was lodged on 
December 29, 1994, with the United States District Court for the 
Central District of California. That action was brought pursuant to the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 
for cleanup and cost recovery at the Operating Industries, Inc. 
Superfund site in Monterey Park, California.
    Pursuant to the Consent Decree, a group of settling municipalities, 
governmental entities, waste transporters, and industrial waste 
generators will put the proceeds from a settlement those parties have 
reached in a private action into an escrow account set up under this 
consent decree for use for performance of remedial actions at the site, 
and partial reimbursement of past costs. The value of this settlement 
is approximately $54 million.
    As provided in 28 CFR 50.7 and 42 U.S.C. 9622(d)(2)(B), the 
Department of Justice will receive comments from persons who are not 
named as parties to this action relating to the proposed Consent Decree 
for a period of thirty days from the date of this publication. Comments 
should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General of the 
Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, 
Washington, DC 20530. All comments should refer to United States v. 
City of Monterey Park, et al., D.J. Ref. 90-11-2-156F.
    The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the office of the 
United States Attorney, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Los Angeles, 
California 90012, and at the Region IX office of the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 
94105. A copy of the proposed Consent Decree may also be examined at 
the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, NW., 4th Floor, Washington, 
DC 20005, (205) 624-0892. A copy of the proposed Consent Decree may be 
obtained in person or by mail from the Consent Decree Library. In 
requesting a copy, please enclose a check in the amount of $17.00 for a 
copy of the consent decree (25 cents per page reproduction costs, 
without any attachments or exhibits to the Decree) payable to ``Consent 
Decree Library.''
Joel M. Gross,
Acting Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 95-1279 Filed 1-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
Jerry Dempsey McINTYRE, petitioner, v. HORRY COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA, et al.

No. 13-7137.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE )

INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2:15-CV-253-JD-PRC

)

NORTHWEST REGIONAL SURGERY )

CENTER, LLC, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), and

Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 72-1, a District Court Judge may refer a dispositive

matter to a Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court now

REFERS the Motion to Dismiss [DE 44] to Magistrate Judge Paul Cherry for preparation of a

Report and Recommendation. The Court’s review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation will be governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: October 11, 2016

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

Judge

United States District Court

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00253-JD-PRC document 55 filed 10/11/16 page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL DATA EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998
INCLUDED IN PART I FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-30-1998
<CASH>                                          40,447
<SECURITIES>                                       471
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,717
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,397
<PP&E>                                          13,114
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,032
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  67,426
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,804
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,402
<OTHER-SE>                                      50,219
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    67,426
<SALES>                                         20,936
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,936
<CGS>                                           12,946
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,841
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,923
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,412
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,511
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,511
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .84
        

</TABLE>
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ICHSAN GUNADI,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-71338

Agency No. A098-263-738

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 12, 2011** 

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

Ichsan Gunadi, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration

judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under

FILED

JUL 20 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-71338

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d

1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.

Contrary to Gunadi’s contention, the record does not compel the conclusion

that Guandi filed his asylum application within a reasonable period of time after

any extraordinary circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5). Accordingly, his

asylum claim fails.

Gunadi does not argue he suffered past persecution, but he contends he will

be persecuted in the future due to his dispute with a former friend. Substantial

evidence supports the agency’s determination that Gunadi failed to establish a clear

probability of future persecution. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 961 (9th Cir.

1996) (en banc) (explaining persecution is an “extreme concept” involving the

infliction of harm). Accordingly, his withholding of removal claim fails.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief

because Gunadi failed to show that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured

if returned to Indonesia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.

2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Exhibit 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL 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 Annual Report of Cinnabar Ventures Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ending May 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephanie Wood,
Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
14th day of July, 2009.


/s/ Stephanie Wood
----------------------------------
Principal Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1464 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1464

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain pimientos (capsicum anuum), 
    prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 5, 2005

  Mr. Garrett of New Jersey introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on certain pimientos (capsicum anuum), 
    prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN PIMIENTOS, PREPARED OR PRESERVED BY VINEGAR OR 
              ACETIC ACID.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.05.36      Pimientos           Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         (capsicum anuum),                                                  31/2008
                         prepared or
                         preserved by
                         vinegar or acetic
                         acid, not frozen,
                         in containers
                         holding over 227
                         g. (provided for
                         in subheading
                         2005.90.50)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Trammell *v.*The State.

*Murder.*

( Decided June 6, 1907.

*44*South. 201.)

1. *Grand Jury; Selection; Number.*— Where there were eighteen qualified jurors who appeared, three of whom were excused for cause, it was error for the court to cause four additional persons to he called and sworn as grand jurors, while fifteen of the original veniremen remain. — Section 5023, Code 1896.

2. *Criminal Law; Appeal; Vbid Indictment; Objection; Time.*— Although not raised on the trial the objection that the inidctment was void because the grand jury finding it was illegally impanelled, is available on apepal.

Appeal from Tallapoosa Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. A. I-I. Alston.

Hugh Trammell was convicted of murder in the 2nd degree and appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Lackey & Bridges, James W. Strother, and Thomas L. Bulger, for appellant.

The grand jury finding the *19indictment was not properly organized and the indictment is void. — -Section 5023, Code 1896; *Gross v. The State,*63 Ala. 40; *Berry v. The State,*63 Ala. 127; *Peters v. The State,*98 Ala. 38. This question may be raised for the first time on *appeal.*— Finlay *v. The State,*61 Ala. 201; *Hall v. The State,*134 Ala. 90.

Alexander ,M. Garber, Attorney General, for State. —No brief came to the Reporter.

DOWDELL, J.

It affirmatively appears of record that the grand jury by which the indictment was found and returned in this case Avas illegally constituted. The original venire consisted of 18 persons, all of whom appeared and Avere ascertained by the court to possess the necessary qualifications, and all Avere thereupon duly and legally sworn in as grand jurors. Subsequently 3 of said grand jurors were excused by the court, Avhich left 15 of the original venire. With the 15 remaining— the minimum number under the statute — it was still a legally constituted grand jury. The court, hOAvever, after having excused the 3, and Avhile 15 yet remained, caused 4 other persons to be called and sworn as grand jurors and added to this number. This Avas Avithout authority of Iuav, and rendered the grand jury so constituted an illegal body, and consequently the indictmnet returned by it, and upon which the defendant Avas tried, Avas a nullity. — Section 5023, Cr. Code 1896; *Perry v. State,*63 Ala. 126; *Peters v. State,*98 Ala. 38, 13 South. 334.

The objection is available on appeal, although not raised on the trial in the circuit *court.*— Finley *v. State,*61 Ala. 201; *Hall v. State,*134 Ala. 90, 32 South. 750 Other questions presented need not now be considered, as they may not arise on another trial.

*20For the error pointed out, the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded. The defendant will be held to answer a new indictment, and until discharged according to law.

Reversed and remanded.

Tyson, C. J., and Anderson and McClellan, JJ,, concur.
COURT OF APPEALS

S E C O N D D I S T R I C T O F T E X A S

CHIEF JUSTICE

 TERRIE LIVINGSTON

JUSTICES

 LEE ANN DAUPHINOT

 ANNE GARDNER

 SUE WALKER

 BILL MEIER

 LEE GABRIEL

 BONNIE SUDDERTH

TIM CURRY CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER

401 W. BELKNAP, SUITE 9000

FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76196-0211

TEL: (817) 884-1900

FAX: (817) 884-1932

www.txcourts.gov/2ndcoa

CLERK 

 DEBRA SPISAK

CHIEF STAFF ATTORNEY

 LISA M. WEST

GENERAL COUNSEL

 CLARISSA HODGES

October 14, 2015

Catherine Luft

Assistant Criminal District Attorney

1450 East McKinney

Denton, TX 76209

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Jason Edward Niehaus

225 W. Hickory St., Suite F

Denton, TX 76201

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 02-15-00046-CR

02-15-00047-CR

Trial Court Case Number: F-2013-0121-B

F-2014-0742-B

Style: Brent Stephens

v.

The State of Texas

The appellant’s reply brief has been filed under the date of Tuesday,

October 13, 2015 in the above referenced cause.

Respectfully yours,

DEBRA SPISAK, CLERK

By: Rene Wallace, Deputy Clerk

FILE COPY
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT PURSUANT TO SECURITIES
ACT RULES 13A-14 AND 15D-14 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report (report) on Form 10-Q of Del Taco Restaurant
Properties I;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the 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 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
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 the 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; andb)
    
    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:August 13, 2007
    /s/ Shirlene LopezShirlene LopezPresident
EXHIBIT 21.1
  RHI
    ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
    LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
    AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2008
  Company

JurisdictionRHI Entertainment Holdings II, LLC 9/6/07

DERHI Entertainment, LLC 7/12/94

DERHI Entertainment Productions, LLC 6/7/99

DENGP Holding Inc. 2/1/00

DEMetropolitan Productions, Inc. 2/8/95

DEDon Quixote, Inc. 12/6/99

DEHE PRO Tunes, Inc. 7/24/96

DEHEP Music, Inc. 7/24/96

DEHEGOA Inc. 4/23/01

DEHEDAUS Pty Limited 9/18/03Independent Projects, Inc. 11/13/96

DERHI International Distribution Inc. 6/08/06

DERHI Entertainment Distribution, LLC 6/7/99

DERHI Entertainment Limited 3/16/96

UKRHI Entertainment Kft 3/17/04

HUSLB Productions, Inc. 3/1/02

DEWayzgoose Concert Services BV (NL) 9/18/86HEP SS Music, Inc. 2/21/03

DERHI Entertainment Australia Pty. Ltd. 9/25/02Christmas Carol Limited  3/05/04

UKDTS Productions Ltd. 8/21/01Southern Whale Pty Ltd. 4/24/97

AUThistle Management Ltd 8/10/98

BVILibrary Storage, Inc 6/16/08

DE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CR-89

)

CALVIN L. MILLER )

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 May 19, 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 charges 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 Counts 1, 2, and 3 as charged in the four-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 19th day of May 2014.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2