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

Certification Furnished 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 Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, who are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify 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 Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



By:

/s/ Kerry J. ChauvinKerry J. ChauvinChief Executive OfficerNovember 9, 2006By:

/s/ Joseph P. Gallagher, IIIJoseph P. Gallagher, IIIChief Financial OfficerNovember 9, 2006


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Gulf Island
Fabrication, Inc. and will be retained by Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### WILLIAM REITER, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MAX MARX COLOR & CHEMICAL CO. DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

December 17, 1960.

*Messrs.*Lamb, *Langan & Blalce*and *Mr. H. Curtis Meanor*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Francis Sorin*for the respondent.

Granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-24-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-26-2000
<CASH>                                           2,059
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   90,580
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,748
<INVENTORY>                                     20,277
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               131,664
<PP&E>                                         178,727
<DEPRECIATION>                                  71,531
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 307,850
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          137,374
<BONDS>                                        154,065
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,457
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   307,850
<SALES>                                        263,097
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               263,097
<CGS>                                          217,685
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  217,685
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,333
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,065
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,172
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                893
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       893
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
No. 07-15-00429-CV

In re Reidie James Jackson, Relator §

§

§

§ Original Proceeding

December 11, 2015

Opinion Per Curiam

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated December 11, 2015

, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

o O o
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Bryan M. Lemley, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit 

committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: May 11, 2006 

 

/s/ Bryan M. Lemley

Bryan M. Lemley, Secretary,

Treasurer and ChiefFinancial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tien NGUYEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-10083.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 8, 2008.

Filed Jan. 13, 2009.

Sue P. Fahami, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Elizabeth A. Olson, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Dan C. Maloney, Esquire, Michael K. Powell, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender, Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Tien Nguyen (“Nguyen”) appeals his sentence for possession of stolen goods in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2315 and 2. We hold that Nguyen waived the right to appeal his sentence and dismiss.

In his plea agreement, Nguyen waived his right to appeal any sentence within the applicable sentencing guidelines range, “the manner in which that sentence was determined,” and “any other aspect of his conviction or sentence.” He reserved only the right to appeal a sentence departing upward from the applicable guidelines range. In challenging the district court’s adoption of the PSR’s criminal history points, Nguyen appeals the court’s calculation of his sentence. Nguyen waived the right to appeal on this ground.

DISMISSED.

*

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

FortheSeventhCircuit

Chicago,Illinois60604

July28,2010

Before

RICHARDA.POSNER,CircuitJudge

ILANADIAMONDROVNER,CircuitJudge

DIANES.SYKES,CircuitJudge

IN RE: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ] Petition for Writ of

 Petitioner. ] Mandamus from the Northern

 ] District of Illinois,

No. 10-2766 ] Eastern Division.

 ] 

 ] No. 1:01-cr-01098-1

 ] 

 ] James F. Holderman,

 ] Chief Judge.

Rule25(a)(2)ofthecriminalrulesprovidesthatincasesinwhichtheoriginaltrial

judgeisdisabled,thejudgewhoreplaceshimmustcertifyhisfamiliaritywiththetrial

recordbeforeproceeding.Althoughtherulespeaksonlyofdeath,sickness,orother

disability,anddoesnotmentionotherreasonswhyajudgemightceasetopresideovera

caseduringtrial,itdefinesapracticethatshouldbefollowedwhateverthereason.

Thereforewedirectthatthenewjudgebeforeproceedingwiththetrialcertifyhis

familiaritywiththetrialrecord.

Case 1:01-cr-01098 Document 793 Filed 07/28/10 Page 1 of 1 Case: 10-2766 Document: 13 Filed: 07/28/2010 Pages: 1
Case 10-00570 Doc 1 Filed 01/08/10 Entered 01/08/10 13:45:33 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 7
Case 10-00570 Doc 1 Filed 01/08/10 Entered 01/08/10 13:45:33 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 7
Case 10-00570 Doc 1 Filed 01/08/10 Entered 01/08/10 13:45:33 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 7
Case 10-00570 Doc 1 Filed 01/08/10 Entered 01/08/10 13:45:33 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 7
Case 10-00570 Doc 1 Filed 01/08/10 Entered 01/08/10 13:45:33 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 7
Case 10-00570 Doc 1 Filed 01/08/10 Entered 01/08/10 13:45:33 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 7
Case 10-00570 Doc 1 Filed 01/08/10 Entered 01/08/10 13:45:33 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 7
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lonnie Mack OGLESBEE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-6348.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 25, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 29, 2011.

Lonnie Mack Oglesbee, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lonnie Mack Oglesbee seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the rec*675ord and conclude that Oglesbee has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny all pending motions. 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.*
JrIL E,f,tt Case: 1:02-cr-00200 Document #: 1865 Filed: 03/15/19 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:7550 ltq H
Case: 1:02-cr-00200 Document #: 1865 Filed: 03/15/19 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:7550
Case: 1:02-cr-00200 Document #: 1865 Filed: 03/15/19 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:7550
il, t C,utnzo,te #A'rcq-qa'l

Fcdcru,l Priy,, tattp

?,0, bo* 33

'Te,re #arteL'L' 4/8og

( --l

?!.!-{5.,t'1( i.i,,r ri.'-1.{ rr rhJ .f.riifl, M lLJrj.H, yJ-,II.- ir..;il...i!....:r Ji.i ,*i*ii..,i

.1.7 :F,,r.,fl.!;- .ffrj1:r F.]t4 3 l-

|;r-20739_424a

Hon Jud_g,e Rebbeca pallnrayer

219 S Dearborn ST _,,,,,-.y,

Chicago, tt_ OOOOI'

United States

ffiillllllilllllllllllllllllllllllllltllllllllllllllttlll[lllllllllil

o3/1 512019-22

Eir*fi-.*- i AEi€i+E 1' 1" t fi1il y fi,1,,,,,11,,,,,,,,i,,,, l,,,,,1,11, li,,t,,,l,,l,,rl

Case: 1:02-cr-00200 Document #: 1865 Filed: 03/15/19 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:7550
Case: 1:02-cv-05000 Document #: 26 Filed: 02/07/03 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:120
Case: 1:02-cv-05000 Document #: 26 Filed: 02/07/03 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:121
Case: 1:02-cv-05000 Document #: 26 Filed: 02/07/03 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:122
Case: 1:02-cv-05000 Document #: 26 Filed: 02/07/03 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:123
Case: 1:02-cv-05000 Document #: 26 Filed: 02/07/03 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:124
Case: 1:02-cv-05000 Document #: 26 Filed: 02/07/03 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:125
Case: 1:02-cv-05000 Document #: 26 Filed: 02/07/03 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:126
Case: 1:02-cv-05000 Document #: 26 Filed: 02/07/03 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:127
#### Osborn *v.*The State.

*Murder.*

(Decided Feb. 6, 1908.

45 South. 666.)

1. *Grand Jury; Organization; Increasing Number on Account of Disqualification.*— The Grand jury was regularly organized with fifteen members, and after *organization*one was excused on account of disqualification, whereupon, the court proceeded to summon a person to take the place of the grand juror excused. Held, that unless the number was reduced below thirteen the court was without power to increase the number or supply the place of a juror-excused, and that a panel of more than thirteen was illegally organized where a juror was substituted for one excused.

2. *Indictment; Invalidity; liffect.*— An indictment found' by a grand jury while an unauthorized person was serving thereon is void, and is not saved by the provisions of section 5269, Code 1896.

Appeal from St. Clair Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. A. H. Alston.

Ed Osborn was convicted of murder in -the second degree and sentenced to ten years in the penitentiary, and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

*45Gooijhue & Blackwood, M. M. Smith, and James A. Embry, for appellant.

The record shows such fatal irregularities in the organization of the grand jury that the indictment will not sustain the conviction in the court *below.*— Nordan *v. The State,*148 Ala. 18; *Peters n. The State,*98 Ala. 38; *Finley v. The State,*61 Ala. 201; *Gross v. The State,*63 Ala. 40; *Fryer v. The State,*41 South. 172; *O’Byrne v. The State,*51 Ala. 25.

Alexander M. Garber, Attorney General, for the State.

ANDERSON, J.

The grand jury contained 15 members, having been legally organized under section 5023 of the Code of 1896. ' When they appeared in court, and the foreman, J. L. Forman, was excused because of disqualification under section 5042, there were 14 grand jurors remaining, and the cburt erred in increasing the number to 15, and J. W. Allen was improperly added thereto. Not being a legal member of the grand jury, Indictments found and returned by said body while he was serving were void, and cannot support a conviction. After a grand jury has been once legally organized, and the number is subsequently reduced, the law does not authorize an increase unless the number is reduced below 13. Section 5044 of the Code of 1896.

The curative effect of section 5269 of the Code of 1896 cannot save the indictment in the case at bar, which, being void, will not support a judgment of conviction.— *Nordan v. State,*143 Ala. 13, 39 South. 406, and cases there cited.

The judgment of the circuit court, is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Tyson, O. J., and Dowdell and McClellan, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Renaldo Turner, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Coffinas, J.), rendered July 14, 1983, affirmed *(see, People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9). Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Brown, Niehoff and Fiber, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 29 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 29

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
     relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect 
                               elections.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 1, 2011

   Mr. Udall of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
Durbin, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Begich, and Mrs. 
  Shaheen) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
          twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
     relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect 
                               elections.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and 
spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to Federal 
elections, including through setting limits on--
            ``(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for 
        nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; 
        and
            ``(2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in 
        support of, or in opposition to such candidates.
    ``Section 2. A State shall have power to regulate the raising and 
spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to State 
elections, including through setting limits on--
            ``(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for 
        nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; 
        and
            ``(2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in 
        support of, or in opposition to such candidates.
    ``Section 3. Congress shall have power to implement and enforce 
this article by appropriate legislation.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alfonso Rizzuto, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 548]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Michael J. Obús, J.), rendered on or about March 25, 2010, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed. Concur— Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Renwick and Román, JJ.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1



               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-99586) pertaining to the 1995 Equity Incentive Plan, Stock Options
Issued Outside the 1995 Equity Incentive Plan, 1995 Employee Stock Purchase
Plan, and the 1995 Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option Plan of DataWorks
Corporation of our report dated January 31, 1997, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of DataWorks Corporation included in the
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.



                                                       ERNST & YOUNG LLP

San Diego, California
March 25, 1997
#### In the Matter of Johnny Bunting, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[944 NYS2d 321]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Chemung County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with unauthorized Uniform Commercial Code (hereinafter UCC) activity and threats. The misbehavior report relates that petitioner attempted to mail a letter to the Bronx County District Attorney, in which petitioner attempted to engage in a scheme involving the “Redemptive Process” as well as threatened the District Attorney if he did not comply with his directive. Following a disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty only of violating the rule against unauthorized UCC activity.

Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report and related documentation, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing, particularly the testimony of an attorney who identified specific language in the letter consistent with the redemptive process, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Bunting v Fischer,*85 AD3d 1473, 1474 [2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 712 [2011]). To the extent that petitioner claims that the misbehavior report did not provide him adequate notice of the charge because it listed a nonexistent rule number, the author of the misbehavior report explained that it was a typographical error *(see generally Matter of Stinson v Brack,*87 AD3d 1218, 1219 [2011]). Moreover, petitioner has demonstrated no prejudice as a result of this *1321clerical error *(see id.).*Finally, petitioner’s challenge to the constitutionality of the subject rule *(see*7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [xx]) is not properly before us because it must be raised in the context of a prison grievance procedure *(see Matter of Samuels v Department of Correctional Servs. Staff,*84 AD3d 1629, 1630 [2011]).

Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his claim of hearing officer bias and that he was improperly removed from the hearing, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Peters, EJ., Lahtinen, Kavanagh, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.