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





Certification of CEO and CFO

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 on Form 10-QSB of Shelter Properties V Limited Partnership (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, 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 his 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 Partnership.



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/Martha L. Long      
| | Name: Martha L. Long   
| | Date: November 13, 2007
| |                        
| | /s/Stephen B. Waters   
| | Name: Stephen B. Waters
| | Date: November 13, 2007



This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 22

- 00029

- CR

ARTIS RAY DURDEN , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 276th District Court

Marion County, Texas

Trial Court No. F 14886

Before Morriss, C.J., Stevens and van Cleef , JJ.2 O R D E R

Appellant Artis Ray Durden appeals from his conviction of assault on a public servant

.

On May 5 , 202 2

, Durden’s court

- appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders 1 brief in this

matter , and on May 13 , 202 2

, Durden filed a pro se motion for access to the appellate record for

purpos es of preparing a response to his counsel’s Anders brief. Durden ’s motion for access to

the appellate record is granted. Under Kelly v. State

, 2 we are now required to en ter an order

specifying the procedure to be followed to ensure Durden ’s access to th e record.

On May 23, 2022, this Court forwarded a paper copy of the appellate record , along with

this order, to Durden

. Allowing fifteen days from the date of t his order f or the record to be

delivered to Durden and giving Durden thirty days to prepare his pro se response, we h e re by set

July 7 , 202 2 , as the deadline for Durden to file his pro se response to his counsel’s Anders brief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

D ate : May 23, 2022

1 See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

2 Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 321

– 22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Deon Jay BREWER, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 06-6190.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 2006.

Decided: April 26, 2006.

Deon Jay Brewer, Appellant Pro Se. John Castle Parr, Office of the United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

*206Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Deon Jay Brewer seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion without prejudice. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brewer has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### Maya Zak, Respondent-Appellant, v One East 100th Street Physicians, P. C., Appellant-Respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Groh, J.), entered on May 4, 1984, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The cross appeal from the judgment is dismissed as not properly taken in view of the stipulation dated December 16, 1983, without costs and without disbursements. No opinion.

Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Carro, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.
EXHIBIT 31.1


                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I,  Scott A.  Haire, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this  quarterly  report on Form 10-Q of MB Software,
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
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
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 cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

                  a. designed such disclosure  controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

                  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure
controls and  procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

                  c. presented in this quarterly  report our  conclusions  about
the  effectiveness  of the  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  based  on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

         5. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation,  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 in the design or operation of
internal  controls  which could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

                  b.  any  fraud,   whether  or  not  material,   that  involves
management or other  employees who have a significant  role in the  registrant's
internal controls;

         6. The registrant's  other certifying  officers and I have indicated in
this quarterly report whether or not there were significant  changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: August 18 , 2003

/S/    Scott A. Haire
Scott A. Haire,
Chairman of the Board,
(Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 32 (a)



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Form 10-QSB of United Financial Banking Companies, Inc. for the three months ended March 31, 2005, I, Harold C. Rauner, President and Chief Executive Officer of United Financial Banking
Companies, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:



| | (1) | such Form 10-QSB, 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 such Form 10-QSB, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of United Financial Banking Companies,
Inc.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/S/ HAROLD C. RAUNER                 
|Harold C. Rauner                     
|President and Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

ALBERT L. BAKER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 3:16-CV-035 JM

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Albert L. Baker, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition (DE # 1)

attempting to challenge the prison disciplinary hearing (BTC 14-03-181) where a

Branchville Correctional Facility Disciplinary Hearing Officer (“DHO”) found him

guilty of Security Threat Group Material in violation of B-208. His loss of earned credit

time was originally suspended, but subsequently imposed. 

In his petition, Baker states that he did not appeal to the Final Reviewing

Authority. However, before bringing a habeas corpus challenge, a prisoner must

exhaust his claims as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). 

Indiana does not provide judicial review of decisions by prison

administrative bodies, so the exhaustion requirement in 28 U.S.C. §

2254(b) is satisfied by pursuing all administrative remedies. These are, we

held in Markham v. Clark, 978 F.2d 993 (7th Cir. 1992), the sort of “available

State corrective process” (§ 2254(b)(1)(B)(i)) that a prisoner must use.

Indiana offers two levels of administrative review: a prisoner aggrieved

by the decision of a disciplinary panel may appeal first to the warden and

then to a statewide body called the Final Reviewing Authority. Moffat

sought review by both bodies, but his argument was limited to the

contention that the evidence did not support the board’s decision. He did

not complain to either the warden or the Final Reviewing Authority about

the board’s sketchy explanation for its decision. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526

U.S. 838, 119 S.Ct. 1728, 144 L.Ed.2d 1 (1999), holds that to exhaust a claim,

and thus preserve it for collateral review under § 2254, a prisoner must
present that legal theory to the state’s supreme court. The Final Reviewing

Authority is the administrative equivalent to the state’s highest court, so

the holding of Boerckel implies that when administrative remedies must

be exhausted, a legal contention must be presented to each administrative

level. 

Moffat v. Broyles, 288 F.3d 978, 981-82 (7th Cir. 2002). 

Here, Baker’s loss of earned credit time was originally suspended and so he

could not immediately appeal to the Final Reviewing Authority. However, once the loss

of earned credit time was imposed, he was required to do so before filing a habeas

corpus challenge. Because he did not, this petition must be denied without prejudice.

For these reasons, the habeas corpus petition is DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE because it is unexhausted.

SO ORDERED.

Date: April 19, 2016

s/James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Vegetable Crops Research: Madison, WI
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    ScientistsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Madison, Wisconsin Vegetable Crops Research People Dennis Halterman





- Welcome Page
- About Dr. Halterman
- Positions Available
- Halterman Lab Photos
- Potato Late Blight
- Potato Early Dying
- Potato Early Blight
- Potato Virus Y
- Where the Wild things Grow
- How to Make a Better Potato
- Teaching Resources
- American Phytopathological Society
- Potato Association of America
- International Society for Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions

Early Blightheadline bar


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### MARTIN, Respondent, v. MURPHY, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

March 2, 1898.)

Action by Orren E. Martin against Michael B. Murphy.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Plant Genetic Resources Conservation Unit: Griffin, GA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Griffin, Georgia Plant Genetic Resources Conservation Unit





- ARS News & Events
- AgResearch Magazine
- Image Gallery
- News
- About PGRCU
- Multistate Research Project S-009
- PGRCU Personnel Directory
- Unit News and Events
- Collaborations
- Career Opportunities

Newsheadline bar   ARS News Articles  Bottlegourd Gene May Curb Cucurbit VirusOct 03, 2007Prompt Progress Made Against a New Threat to WatermelonApr 11, 2007Watermelon Line May Help Breeders Combat MildewFeb 23, 2006Preserving the Grain Crop Finger MilletApr 06, 2005Specialty Bean Tissues No Treat for NematodesAug 22, 2001


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000714560
<NAME> US AIRWAYS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             986
<SECURITIES>                                       353
<RECEIVABLES>                                      590<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                        198
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,698
<PP&E>                                           6,862
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,847
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,372
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,404
<BONDS>                                          2,068
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        (417)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,372
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,059
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,194
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  57
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (166)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (58)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (108)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                         (103)
<NET-INCOME>                                      (211)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F2>
<FN>
<F1>Receivables are presented net of allowances.
<F2>EPS calculations are not relevant because US Airways, Inc. is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of US Airways Group, Inc.
</FN>


</TABLE>
EX-34.13
(logo) ERNST & YOUNG

Ernst & Young LLP
220 South Sixth Street, Ste 1400
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4509

Phone (612) 343-1000
www.ey.com

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors
U.S. Bank National Association

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on
Assessment of Compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that U.S. Bank National Association (the
Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the
SEC's Regulation AB for the Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities platform
(the Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, except for
servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(i), 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(i)-(vii),
1122(d)(3)(i)-(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(iv)-(xv), which the Company has determined
are not applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to the
servicing platform covered by this report. Management is responsible for the
Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with
the servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as
adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's
compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination
included testing of less than all of the individual asset backed transactions
and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the
servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the
Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected
activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our
procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities
performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our
procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred
either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances
or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by
this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe
that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our
examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance
with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31,
2007, for the Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities platform is fairly stated,
in all material respects.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

February 12, 2008

A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited
[No. 38267-5-I.

Division One.

October 13, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Norman Alexander Meyers, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 95-1-03248-2, Nicole MacInnes, J., entered March 11,1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Webster, J., concurred in by Kennedy, A.C.J., and Coleman, J.
**Exhibit      31.1**

**COMMUNITY      BANKS, INC.**

**RULE      13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION**

** (Chief      Executive Officer)**

| Date   | June                26, 2007 |   | /s/                Eddie L. Dunklebarger |
|--------|------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|
|   |                         |   | Eddie                L. Dunklebarger     |
|   |                         |   | Chairman                and President    |
|   |                         |   | (Chief                Executive Officer) |