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 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of Westwood Holdings Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for theyear ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Brian O. Casey, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge: 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.78m or 78o(d)); and 

(2) The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated: February 26, 2009

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been providedto Westwood Holdings Group, Inc. and will be retained by Westwood Holdings Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          12,662
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          26,756
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    282,532
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           275,453
<LOANS>                                        401,935
<ALLOWANCE>                                      4,612
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 746,080
<DEPOSITS>                                     449,280
<SHORT-TERM>                                    10,260
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,086
<LONG-TERM>                                    222,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        81,631
<OTHER-SE>                                    (11,107)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 746,080
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 25,273
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               14,264
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   343
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                39,880
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              12,988
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,382
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           16,498
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,900
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             (2,003)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  9,915
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,865
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,865
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,665
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.54
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.55
<LOANS-NON>                                        610
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,085
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   152
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,857
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,367
<RECOVERIES>                                       222
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                4,612
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,963
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            649


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MICHAEL BOSTON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 57 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4th day of August, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

HERVIN S. TALLEY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 2:15-CV-438

)

JAMES MICHAEL WOODS, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a complaint filed by Hervin

S. Talley, a pro se prisoner, on November 24, 2015. For the reasons

set forth below, this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915A. 

DISCUSSION

“A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a

pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and

citations omitted). Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,

the court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint. 

Talley alleges that Deputy Prosecutor James Michael Woods

ignored the facts of his case and the testimony presented during

his State criminal trial. However, “in initiating a prosecution and

in presenting the State’s case, the prosecutor is immune from a

civil suit for damages under § 1983.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S.
409, 431 (1976). “[A]bsolute immunity shields prosecutors even if

they act maliciously, unreasonably, without probable cause, or even

on the basis of false testimony or evidence.” Smith v. Power, 346

F.3d 740, 742 (7th Cir. 2003) (quotation marks and citation

omitted). Therefore the Defendant is immune from suit. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, this case is DISMISSED

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

DATED: December 8, 2015 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United State District Court

-2-
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Credit Union Administration

# TIME AND DATE: 

10:00 a.m., Thursday, June 24, 2021.

# PLACE: 

Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, the meeting will be open to the public via live webcast only. Visit the agency's homepage (*www.ncua.gov*) and access the provided webcast link.

# STATUS: 

This meeting will be open to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Board Action, Federal Credit Union Loan Interest Rate Ceiling.

2. NCUA Rules and Regulations, Current Expected Credit Loss Methodology.

3. NCUA Rules and Regulations, Capitalization of Interest.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304.

Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2021-13237 Filed 6-21-21; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted), Robert G. Gargus, Chief Financial Officer of Applied Micro Circuits Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



|1. | This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act).
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Report to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act
(whether made before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.



/S/ ROBERT G. GARGUSRobert G. Gargus,Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Dated: February 1, 2010
United States District Court

Northern District of Indiana 

ROOSEVELT WILLIAMS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-813 JVB

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Roosevelt Williams, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding. (DE 1.) In WCU # 12-04-0297, Williams was

found guilty of a trafficking offense and sanctioned with the loss of earned time credits. (DE 10-

2.) After he filed this petition, the Indiana Department of Correction (“IDOC”) final reviewing

authority decided to vacate the disciplinary conviction and remand the case for a new hearing.

(DE 10-1.) 

Based on the IDOC’s action, the respondent moves to dismiss the petition as moot. (DE

10.) As the respondent points out, because the guilty finding was vacated, the petition has

become moot. See Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir. 2003) (prison disciplinary

conviction can be challenged in a federal habeas proceeding only if it lengthened the duration of

the petitioner’s confinement); see also Brown v. Bartholomew Consol. Sch. Corp., 442 F.3d 588,

596 (7th Cir. 2006) (“For a case to be justiciable, a live controversy must continue to exist at all

stages of review, not simply on the date the action was initiated.”). 

Williams has filed a response to the motion. (DE 11.) He asserts that a rehearing was held

in April 2014, and he was again found guilty. He appears to complain that he is being required to

serve additional time in disciplinary segregation as a result of the new guilty finding. However,
this is not a basis for keeping his habeas petition alive. Disciplinary segregation affects the

“severity” rather than the “duration” of custody. Montgomery v. Anderson, 262 F.3d 641, 643

(7th Cir. 2001). As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has explained, “More

restrictive custody must be challenged under § 1983, in the uncommon circumstance when it can

be challenged at all.” Id.

Williams also argues that his double jeopardy rights were violated because he was tried

again on the same charge, but this argument is unavailing. Double jeopardy principles do not

apply in the prison disciplinary context. See Meeks v. McBride, 81 F.3d 717, 722 (7th Cir. 1996).

Accordingly, the petition will be dismissed. However, if Williams believes his due process rights

were violated at the rehearing, he is free to file a new habeas petition challenging that hearing

after exhausting his available administrative remedies.

For the reasons set forth above, the respondent’s motion (DE 10) is GRANTED, and the

petition (DE 1) is DISMISSED. 

SO ORDERED on May 9, 2014.

 s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen 

Joseph S. Van Bokkelen

United States District Judge

Hammond Division

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
 Infectious Bacterial Diseases Research: Ames, IA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




Welcome to our website


Mission


People Bannantine, John Bayles, Darrell Boggiatto, Paola Kanipe, Carly Nally, Jarlath Olsen, Steven Osorio, Sue Palmer, Mitchell Pringle, Darl Putz, Ellie Tibbs-Cortes, Bienvenido Walther, Lilia Wilson-Welder, Jennifer Zimmerman, Shelly


Midwest Area   Steven.Olsen@usda.gov


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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) Case No. 3:13-CR-071 JD

)

KANDI BIGGINS )

ORDER

No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation upon

a plea of guilty issued on August 1, 2013 [DE 20]. Accordingly, the court now ADOPTS those

findings and recommendations, ACCEPTS defendant Kandi Biggins’ plea of guilty, and FINDS the

defendant guilty of Counts 1 through 8 of the Indictment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: August 22, 2013 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

Judge

United States District Court
#### DUFF, Respondent, v. NADLER, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 11, 1907.)

Action by Feter Duff against Wolf Nadler.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed by default, with costs.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

WORLDS INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

ACTIVISION BLIZZARD INC., BLIZZARD 

ENTERTAINMENT, INC., ACTIVISION 

PUBLISHING, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2021-1990

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Massachusetts in No. 1:12-cv-10576-DJC, Judge 

Denise J. Casper.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

WAYNE MICHAEL HELGE, Davidson Berquist Jackson & 

Gowdey, LLP, McLean, VA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. 

Also represented by ALDO NOTO, JAMES THOMAS WILSON. 

 KEVIN SCOTT PRUSSIA, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale 

and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by SONAL NARESH MEHTA, JENNIFER 

JASMINE JOHN, Palo Alto, CA. 

Case: 21-1990 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 03/10/2022
 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (MOORE, Chief Judge, CHEN and 

HUGHES, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

March 10, 2022 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 21-1990 Document: 38 Page: 2 Filed: 03/10/2022
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 78 (Monday, April 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20150-20151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10040]



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



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a public meeting of the FAA's Aviation 
Rulemaking Advisory Committee to discuss rotorcraft issues, current 
rulemaking actions, and future activities and plans.

DATES: The meeting will be held on May 12, 1995, 8 a.m. Arrange for 
oral presentations by April 28, 1995.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the FAA Southwest Regional 
Office, Rotorcraft Directorate, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 
76137-0110.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Barbara Herber, Office of 
Rulemaking, Aircraft & Airport Rules Division, ARM-200, 800 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-
3498.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The referenced meeting is announced pursuant 
to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463; 5 U.S.C. App. II). The agenda will include:

<all> Status reports on:
    <bullet> Final rules resulting from the ARAC recommendations on 
``Occupant Protection'' Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 94-8 (59 
FR 17156) and ``Rotorcraft Regulatory Changes Based on European Joint 
Airworthiness Requirements'' NPRM 94-36 (59 FR 67068).
    <bullet> Status of the development of a recommendation regarding 
Class D external loads.
    <bullet> Progress on the efforts to identify new upper weight/
passenger limits [[Page 20151]] for Normal Category Rotorcraft.
<all> Presentation for approval of the ``Work Plan'' and the `` 
Concept'' for resolution of each of the following assigned tasks:
    <bullet> Harmonization of Miscellaneous Rotorcraft Regulations.
    <bullet> Critical parts.
    <bullet> Performance and Handling Qualities Requirements.
<all> Review of future rotorcraft issues.
    <bullet> Performance and Handling Qualities Requirements.
<all> Review of future rotorcraft issues.

    Attendance is open to the interested public but will be limited to 
the space available. The public must make arrangements by April 28, 
1995, to present oral statements at the meeting. Written statements may 
be presented to the committee at any time by providing 16 copies to the 
Assistant Chair or by providing the copies to him at the meeting. In 
addition, sign and oral interpretation, as well as a listening device, 
can be made available at the meeting if requested 10 calendar days 
before the meeting. Arrangements may be made by contacting the person 
listed under the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 18, 1995.
Mark R. Schilling,
Assistant Executive Director for Rotorcraft Issues, Aviation Rulemaking 
Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 95-10040 Filed 4-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2245 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2245

          To suspend temporarily the duty on paraChlorophenol.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 2005

  Mr. Spratt introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To suspend temporarily the duty on paraChlorophenol.

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

SECTION 1. PARACHLOROPHENOL.

    (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:

``      9902.09.26      paraChlorophenol    Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         (CAS No. 106-48-                                                   31/2008
                         9) (provided for
                         in subheading
                         2908.10.60)......

    (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>
```
#### HEISE, Respondent, v. SELECTED SECURITIES CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 8, 1907.)

Action by Anna T. H. Heise against the Selected Securities Cbmpany. L. Wertheimer, for appellant. F. M. Wells, for respondent.

No opinion. Order (105 N. Y. Supp. 1079) affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1656 

To correct maps depicting Unit T–10 of the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 14, 2005 

Mr. ORTIZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Resources 

A BILL 

To correct maps depicting Unit T–10 of the John H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CORRECTIONS TO MAPS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior 

5 shall, before the end of the 30-day period beginning on 

6 the date of the enactment of this Act, make such correc7 tions to the map described in subsection (b) as are nec8 essary to ensure that depictions of areas on that map are 

9 consistent with the depictions of areas appearing on the 

10 map entitled ‘‘Corrections to Coastal Barrier Resources 
2 

•HR 1656 IH 

1 System Map-Unit T–10’’, dated June ll, 2004, and on 

2 file with the Secretary and the Committee on Resources 

3 of the United States House of Representatives. 

4 (b) MAP DESCRIBED.—The map described in this 

5 subsection is the map that— 

6 (1) is included in a set of maps entitled ‘‘Coast7 al Barrier Resources System’’, dated October 24, 

8 1990; and 

9 (2) is subtitled ‘‘Four Mile Hill Unit TX–16P, 

10 North Padre Island Unit T10/T10P’’. 

11 (c) AVAILABILITY.—The Secretary of the Interior 

12 shall keep the map described in subsection (b) on file and 

13 available for public inspection in accordance with section 

14 4(b) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 

15 3503(b)). 

Æ