alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.

MARLON WEBB , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 15

- 0138 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2008

- 007841

- 008 DT The Honorable Rosa Mroz , Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DEN IED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’ s Office , Phoenix By Diane M. Meloche Counsel for Respondent

Marlon Webb , Tucson Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined.STATE v. WEBB Decision of the Court

2 W I N T H R O P , Judge:
¶1 Petitioner , Marlon Webb , petitions this court for review from the summary dismissal of his first notice of pos t

- conviction relief. Webb pled guilty to offering to sell cocaine in 2009 , but did not file his first notice of post

- conviction relief until 2014. The superior court dismissed the notice

as untimely. Webb argues the superior court should have allowed him to file his first notice of post

- conviction relief more than five years late because he believed the post

- conviction relief proceedings of other co

- defendants applied to him. ¶2 We deny relief. Webb received a “ Notice of Rights of Review After Conviction and Procedure” when sentenced in April 2009. That notice explained Webb ’s right to post

- conviction relief and what he was required to do to exercise that right, including how he was required to file a notice of post

- conviction relief within ninety days of the entry of judgment and sentence. Webb’s subjective belief that unidentified post

- conviction relief proceedings of unidentified co

- defendants somehow applied to his case is insufficient to present a colorable claim for relie f pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(f). ¶3 Accordingly, w e grant review , but deny relief.
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

In connection with the Annual Report of Eon Labs, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bernhard Hampl, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|/s/BERNHARD HAMPLBernhard Hampl, Ph.D.
Chief Executive Officer and President |  |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  | 

March 15,
2004

---

QuickLinks
#### In the Matter of Louis Aiello, Appellant, v Robert J. McGuire, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, et *96al., Respondents.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Greenfield, J.), entered on June 11, 1984, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Edward Greenfield, J., without costs and without disbursements. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Asch, Bloom, Fein and Milonas, JJ. [124 Misc 2d 415.]
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.4

                                  CERTIFICATION

                          Chase Credit Card Owner Trust
                           Series 2002-1 (the "Trust")

I, Patricia M. Garvey, a vice president in charge of the reports of the
servicing function of Chase Manhattan Bank USA, National Association for the
above-referenced Trust, certify that:


1.       I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
         Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect
         of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of the
         Trust;

2.       Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
         whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual
         report;

3.       Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
         required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the
         pooling and servicing agreement, or similar agreement, for inclusion in
         these reports is included in these reports;

4.       I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer
         under the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, and based upon
         my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under the
         pooling and servicing agreement, or similar agreement, and except as
         disclosed in the reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations
         under the pooling and servicing agreement, or similar agreement; and

5.       This annual report discloses all significant deficiencies relating to
         the servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based
         upon the report provided by an independent public accountant, after
         conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation
         Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the
         pooling and servicing agreement, or similar agreement, that is included
         in this annual report.



Date:    March 28, 2003

/s/ Patricia M. Garvey
----------------------
Name: Patricia M. Garvey
Title: Vice President
Company: Chase Manhattan Bank USA, National Association
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLAR
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         18,848
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  16,766
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,420
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               86,628
<PP&E>                                         307,939
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (50,123)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,422,111
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          74,258
<BONDS>                                        939,249
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     374,364
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,422,111
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               22,538
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  36,009
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               12,722
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (26,069)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,834)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (24,235)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (24,235)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.
BENJAMIN NAJERA, JR. , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 14

- 0 669 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2005

- 048600

- 001 The Honorable Jose S. Padilla , Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney ’ s Office , Phoenix By Diane M. Meloche Counsel for Respondent
Benjamin Najera, Jr. , Florence Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani and Chief Judge Michael J. Brown joined.STATE v. NAJERA Decision of the Court

2 W I N T H R O P , Judge : ¶1 Benjamin Najera, Jr., petitions this court for review of the summary dismis sal of his third post

- conviction relief proceeding

. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review but deny relief. ¶2 After a jury trial, Najera was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to twenty

- five year s’ imprisonment . This court affirmed Najera’s conviction and sentence on appeal. State v. Najera , 1 CA

- CR 06

- 0318, 1 CA

- CR 06

- 0635 (Ariz. App. May 22, 2007) (mem . decision )

. Najera commenced two prior proceedings for post

- conviction relief

— one in 2007 , and the other in 2011

— both of which were unsuccessful

. ¶3 In August 2014, Najera filed a third notice of post

- conviction relief , asserting that Martinez v. Ryan ,

___ U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), constitutes a significant change in the law permitting him to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of post

- conviction relief counsel. In summarily dismissing the proceeding , the trial court issued a ruling that clearly identified, fully addressed, and correctly resolved Najera’s claim. Under these circumstances, we need not repeat that court’s analysis here; instead, we adopt it. See State v. Whipple , 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993) (holding that, when the trial court rules “ in a fashion that will allow any court in the future to understand the resolution[, n]o useful purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court’ s correct ruling in [the] written decision ” ). ¶4 Accordingly, we grant review but deny relief.
#### Muriel Norton et al., Appellants, v Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Respondent.

[943 NYS2d 82]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered January 21, 2011, after a jury trial, upon a verdict in favor of defendant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court did not err in declining to charge defendant’s former employee as an interested witness in the absence of any evidence that his testimony was biased or that he was personally interested in the outcome of the matter *(cf. Lowenstein v Normandy Group, LLC,*51 AD3d 517 [2008] [former employee of defendant and participant in accident who had motive to shield himself from blame properly charged as interested witness]). Any error attributable to the failure to charge the jury that defendant had statutory responsibility for the maintenance of the subject sidewalk is harmless in light of defendant’s admitted responsibility for maintaining the sidewalk.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in declining, on the eve of trial, to so order a subpoena that could have been issued by counsel and sought items that could have been obtained during discovery *(see*CPLR 2302; *Pena v New York City Tr. Auth.,*48 AD3d 309, 309-310 [2008]). Concur— Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Renwick and Román, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Crum & Forster Holdings Corp., (the “Company”)for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the “Report”) as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof, I, Mary Jane Robertson, Executive Vice President, Chief FinancialOfficer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enactedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1. This Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.       Dated:March 21, 2006 By: /s/ *Mary Jane Robertson*       Mary Jane Robertson      Executive Vice President,      Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission, or its staff, upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.2

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Hamish Malkin, Chief Financial Officer of Argentex Mining Corporation, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 
| (1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Argentex Mining Corporation for the year ended January 31, 2007 (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 Argentex Mining Corporation. |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 
| Dated: May 11, 2007 |   |              |
|---------------------|--------|-------------------|
|                |   |              |
|                |   |              |
|                |   | /s/ Hamish Malkin |   |  
 

 

Hamish Malkin

 

 

Chief Financial Officer 

 

 

(Principal Financial Officer)

 

 

Argentex Mining Corporation

 

 

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 Argentex Mining Corporation and will be retained by Argentex Mining Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

 

 

CW1174599.1

 

 

  |
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-50961

Summary Calendar

KENNETH W. HICKMAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TEXAS DEP’T OF CRIM. JUSTICE,

INST’L DIV.; SHERRY A. McDOUGLE;

JANIE MUNIZ; COREY HARRIS,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas

(W-96-CV-210)

August 7, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, WIENER and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kenneth W. Hickman, a Texas state prisoner, filed a civil rights complaint

and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The district court ordered
1

 Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126 (5th Cir. 1988).

2

Hickman to pay an initial partial filing fee of $6.00. Hickman sought an extension

of time within which to pay the fee and the district court extended same until

October 17, 1996. The district court subsequently dismissed the complaint on the

grounds that the initial partial filing fee had not been paid. Hickman moved for

reinstatement, contending that he had paid the $6.00 fee, attaching to his motion

a trust fund account statement and a date-stamped letter reflecting that a $6.00

payment had been made to the clerk of the district court during August 1996.

Hickman gave notice of his appeal. The district court then denied the motion for

reinstatement because of the appeal.

Although a district court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to

comply with any court order, if the action is dismissed for failure to pay the initial

partial filing fee when in fact the fee has been paid, the dismissal constitutes an

abuse of the district court’s discretion.1 The docket sheet does not reflect that the

initial partial filing fee has been paid, but the documents submitted by Hickman in

his motion for reinstatement do. We therefore must VACATE the district court’s

order of dismissal and REMAND for determination of the actual facts and such

further proceedings as are found appropriate.

VACATED and REMANDED.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 130 (Monday, July 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 36590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14693]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92328; File No. SR-CboeEDGA-2021-013]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice 
of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change To Introduce a New Data Product 
To Be Known as Short Sale Volume Data

July 6, 2021.
    On May 28, 2021, Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'') filed 
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant 
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') 
\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to introduce a 
new data product to be known as Short Sale Volume data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal 
Register on June 16, 2021.\3\ On June 30, 2021, the Exchange withdrew 
the proposed rule change (SR-CboeEDGA-2021-013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92151 (June 10, 
2021), 86 FR 32099. Comment on the proposed rule change is located 
at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboeedga-2021-013/srcboeedga2021013.htm.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-14693 Filed 7-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
EXHIBIT 32


                       CERTIFICATION 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 Hopewell Acquisition Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Gary Huang, President of Hopewell Acquisition Corp.,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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 results of
operations of the Company.


Date:  March 19, 2004


/s/ Gary Huang
--------------------
Gary Huang, President
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    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

In connection with the Annual Report of Tiens Biotech Group (USA), Inc. (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), each of the
undersigned, Jinyuan Li, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Registrant
and Wenjun Jiao, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies in all material respects 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 Registrant as
of and for the period covered by the Report.

Pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission,
this certification is being furnished and is not deemed filed.

Date: March 29, 2007
                                           /s/ Jinyuan Li
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Jinyuan Li
                                           Chief Executive Officer and President
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)


Date: March 29, 2007
                                           /s/ Wenjun Jiao
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Wenjun Jiao
                                           Chief Financial Officer
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of 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-Q of AMCORE Financial, Inc. (the
Company) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Judith Carré Sutfin, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Judith Carré Sutfin
|Judith Carré Sutfin    
|Chief Financial Officer
|August 10, 2009        

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

A signed original of this written statement required by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to AMCORE Financial, Inc. and will be retained by AMCORE Financial, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.