alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C.

SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION

906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of NX Global Company, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2010 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.



|               |  |  |  |                        
|-------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|March 11, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/ David F. LaFave    
|               |  |  |  | David F. LaFave        
|               |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
|               |  | 
|               |  |  |  | /s/ David F. LaFave    
|               |  |  |  | David F. LaFave        
|               |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies
the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 10.44










AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO LEASE
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO LEASE (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of the 29th day of August, 2008 by and between Landlord and Tenant named below:
	
		
	LANDLORD:
	WE 2 Church Street South LLC
c/o Winstanley Enterprises LLC
150 Baker Avenue Extension, Suite 303
Concord, Massachusetts 01742

	TENANT:
	JS Genetics, LLC
2 Church Street South, Unit B-05B and Suite B-5
New Haven, Connecticut

	BUILDING:
	2 Church Street South
New Haven, CT 06519






WHEREAS, Landlord, and Tenant executed a lease dated as of June 28, 2006 (the “Lease”), by which Tenant leased approximately 429 square feet of the Building known as Suite B-05B (the “Premises”); and
WHEREAS, the Lease was subsequently amended by Amendment No. 1 to Lease between Landlord and Tenant dated as of September 18, 2007 by which the term of the Lease was extended and Tenant leased an additional 938 rsf of space known as Suite B-5, making the aggregate rentable square feet of the Premises 1,367 rsf; and
WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant have agreed to increase the Base Rent per rentable square foot and extend the Term of the Lease and otherwise modify the Lease on the terms and conditions set forth below.
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Landlord and Tenant hereby agree as follows:
1.Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to each in the Lease.


2.The Term of the Lease is hereby extended on the same terms and conditions set forth therein, as modified herein, until September 30, 2009.


3.The Base Rent will be increased to $23.00 per rsf in an amount equal to $2,620.08 per month (equivalent to $31,441.00 per annum).


4.Landlord and Tenant represent and warrant to the other that each has full authority to enter into this Amendment No. 2 to Lease and further agree to hold harmless, defend, and indemnify the other from any loss, costs (including reasonable attorneys’ fees), damages, or claim arising from any lack of such authority.


5.Tenant takes the Premises for the extended term “as is”.

1








6.As modified herein, the Lease is hereby ratified and confirmed and shall remain in full force and effect.


















{REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

2












IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the LANDLORD and TENANT have signed this Amendment No. 2 to Lease as of the day and year first above written.


LANDLORD:


WE 2 CHURCH STREET SOUTH LLC


By:    WE Church Manager LLC
Its Manager
/s/ Deborah A. Sweeney        
Witness   Deborah A. Sweeney        
By:    Winstanley Enterprises LLC
Its Manager




/s/ Judy Sommers        By:    /s/ Carter J. Winstanley        
Witness    Judy Sommers                Carter J. Winstanley
Its Manager




TENANT:
JS GENETICS, LLC
[illegible]            
Witness
/s/ Scott Rivkees            
Name: Scott Rivkees
[illegible]                Its:
Witness


















SIGNATURE PAGE TO [Signature page to Amendment No. 2 to Lease by and between WE 2 Church Street South LLC and JS Genetics, LLC]



3
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 23, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40849 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RAMON ORNELAS-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:05-CR-109-ALL

-------------------- Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ramon Ornelas-Rodriguez appeals his guilty-plea sentence for being unlawfully found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). We neednot decide the applicability of the waiver provisions in OrnelasRodriguez’s plea agreement because his constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Ornelas-Rodriguez contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority ofNo. 05-40849 -2- the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Ornelas-Rodriguez properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.
AFFIRMED.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 195

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the required beginning 

date for distributions from individual retirement plans and for distributions of elective deferrals under qualified cash or deferred arrangements. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2005

Mr. SAXTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the required beginning date for distributions from individual retirement plans and for distributions of elective 

deferrals under qualified cash or deferred arrangements.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 195 IH 

1 SECTION 1. REQUIRED BEGINNING DATE FOR DISTRIBU2 TIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT 

3 PLANS AND FOR DISTRIBUTIONS OF ELEC4 TIVE DEFERRALS UNDER QUALIFIED CASH 

5 OR DEFERRED ARRANGEMENTS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (C) of section 

7 401(a)(9) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 

8 to required distributions) is amended by adding at the end 

9 the following new clause: 

10 ‘‘(v) SPECIAL RULE FOR INDIVIDUAL

11 RETIREMENT PLANS AND DEFERRED COM12 PENSATION ARRANGEMENTS.—In the case 

13 of any individual retirement plan (other 

14 than a Roth IRA) and elective deferrals 

15 (as defined in section 402(g)(3)) of any 

16 qualified cash or deferred arrangement (as 

17 defined in section 401(k))—

18 ‘‘(I) subparagraph (A)(i) shall 

19 not apply, and 

20 ‘‘(II) the required beginning date 

21 shall be the date of death of the em22 ployee.’’. 

23 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

24 this section shall apply to distributions after December 31, 

25 2005.

Æ
<PAGE>


                                   EXHIBIT 23

               Independent Registered Public Accountant's Consent

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-120089 on Form S-8 of West Bancorporation, Inc. of our reports dated March
7, 2007, relating to our audits of the consolidated financial statements and
internal control over financial reporting which appear in the Annual Report to
Shareholders, which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of West
Bancorporation, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006.

                                            /s/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLP

Des Moines, Iowa
March 7, 2007
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

JERRY A. MERCER, JR., AND JERRY A. 

MERCER, III,

Respondents

v.

MARTIN P. NEWELL, JR. AND ACTIVE 

RADIATOR REPAIR CO.,

Petitioners

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 260 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of May, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all 

remaining issues. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

This Court in Martin only recognized an exception to the WCA for certain 

fraudulent misrepresentation claims, and no subsequent court has applied 

the Martin exception to any other types of claims. Did the Superior Court 

therefore err in ordering that Respondents could proceed with their medical 

monitoring, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims 

under the Martin exception?
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-17-0000145 29-NOV-2018 08:04 AM
Dated:  3/27/2008                                                                       By: /s/          E. Todd WhittemoreTitle:Executive Vice President, Master ServicingAurora Loan Services LLC,   as Master ServicerI, E. Todd Whittemore, certify that:1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Structured Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2007-8 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");2.  Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;4.  I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and5.  All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.E. Todd Whittemore**Exhibit 31 : Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications**(Senior Officer in charge of the servicing function of Aurora Loan Services LLC, in its capacity as master servicer)Name:In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as CustodianLaSalle Bank National Association, as CustodianNewport Management Corporation, as Sub-Contractor for Aurora Loan Services LLCU.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Paying Agent and CustodianWells Fargo Bank, N.A., as CustodianWestlake Settlement Services, LLC, as Sub-Contractor for Aurora Loan Services LLC
Exhibit 23.1  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM  We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-165489 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-165488 on Form S-3 of our report dated March 11, 2011 relating to the financial statements of A123 Systems, Inc. (the Company) and our report dated March 11, 2011 relating to the effectiveness of the Companys internal control over financial reporting (which report expresses an adverse opinion on the effectiveness of the Companys internal control over financial reporting due to a material weakness), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of A123 Systems, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010.  /s/   DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLPBoston,   MassachusettsMarch 11,   2011
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6128
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BEDFORD EUGENE FARMER, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, District Judge. (CR-92-174, CA-96-676-1) Submitted: May 15, 1997 Decided: May 29, 1997 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Bedford Eugene Farmer, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Farmer , Nos. CR-92-174; CA-96-676-1 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 15, 1997). 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
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUVENILE FEMALE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-30272.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*797Submitted May 24, 2011.*

Filed June 8, 2011.

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant, a juvenile, appeals from the nine-month sentence imposed following revocation of juvenile delinquent supervision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Appellant contends that the district court’s sentence contravenes the rehabilitative purposes of the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5031 et seq. (FJDA), because it reflects impermissible factors and was not the least restrictive means of achieving these purposes. The record reflects that the district court adequately considered the relevant factors within the FJDA while accounting for the totality of Appellant’s unique circumstances and rehabilitative needs, and imposed a sentence that was the least restrictive means to meet those needs. *See United States v. Juvenile,*347 F.3d 778, 787 (9th Cir.2003).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

Postal ServiceTM.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:* July 1, 2021.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 14, 2021, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 195 to Competitive Product List.* Documents are available at *www.prc.gov,* Docket Nos. MC2021-101, CP2021-104.

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2021-14021 Filed 6-30-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eugene Jerome SMITH, a.k.a. Sperm, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-12846

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Jan. 8, 2009.

Eugene Jerome Smith, Jesup, GA, pro se.

Nancy J. Hess, United States Attorney’s Office, Pensacola, FL, E. Bryan Wilson, Tallahassee, FL, Tiffany Hope Eggers, Pensacola, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before BARKETT, MARCUS and FAY, Circuit Judges.

*542PER CURIAM:

Eugene Jerome Smith appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Smith was convicted of one count of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute and two counts of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. In support of his motion for a new trial, Smith produced evidence that he was in Tampa when a witness, Carisha Jones, testified that he was in Pensacola. Additionally, he asserted new evidence showing that Jones made statements to the police describing drug sales at a certain address as drug sales at his home, when Smith no longer lived at that address at the time of the sales.

We review a district court’s denial of a defendant’s motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 provides that a defendant may file a motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence, and “the court may vacate judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 33(a), (b)(1). To obtain a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence, a defendant must show that: (1) the evidence was in fact discovered following trial; (2) the defendant exercised due care to discover the evidence; (3) the evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching; (4) the evidence is material; and (5) the evidence is of such a nature that a new trial would probably produce a different result. *United States v. Lee,*68 F.3d 1267, 1273 (11th Cir.1995). “The failure to satisfy any one of these elements is fatal to a motion for new trial.” *Id.*at 1274. Evidence of an alibi is particularly “within the knowledge of the defendant himself,” making it extremely difficult for a defendant to show that the evidence is new or could not have been discovered with due diligence. *United States v. Williams,*816 F.2d 1527, 1530-31 (11th Cir.1987).

In this case, the evidence proffered by Smith cannot be considered new evidence and could have been discovered by Smith if he had exercised due diligence. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Smith’s motion for a new trial.

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 23**

** **

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

 

We consent to the use of our report datedAugust 27, 2003 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of DakotaGrowers Pasta Company, Inc. (a North Dakota corporation) for the year endedJuly 31, 2003 in this Form 10-K (file number 333-81946).

 

EIDE BAILLY LLP

 
| /s/ Eide Bailly LLP |   |
|---------------------|--------|
|                |
| Fargo, North Dakota |
| October 29,  2003   |

 

1

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CASE NO.: 1:16-CR-71-TLS 

 ) 

LORA SEXTON ) 

 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

 This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 10], filed on November 3, 2016. The Defendant has waived 

objection to the Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the 

Findings and Recommendation [ECF No. 10] in its entirety and accepts the recommended 

disposition. Subject to this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Criminal Procedure 11(c), if applicable and necessary, the plea of guilty to the offense 

charged in Count One (1) of the Information is hereby accepted, and the Defendant is adjudged 

guilty of such offense. 

 The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate 

order.

SO ORDERED on November 18, 2016. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

 JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT