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 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002    In connection with the Annual Report of Heavenly Hot Dogs, Inc. (the ACompany@) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Elwood Shepard, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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 result of operations of the Company.  Date: March 16, 2007 By: /s/ Elwood Shepard Elwood Shepard Chief Executive Officer Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Traci L. Weir, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 916]

*1487Appeal from a judgment of the Jefferson County Court (Kim H. Martusewicz, J.), rendered April 25, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting her upon a guilty plea of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20 [1]), defendant contends that she was denied effective assistance of counsel based, inter alia, upon defense counsel’s failure to request a mental health examination of defendant or an independent autopsy of the victim. That contention does not survive the guilty plea inasmuch as defendant fails even to allege, nor has she shown, that “the plea bargaining process was infected by [the] allegedly ineffective assistance or that defendant entered the plea because of [her] attorney’s allegedly poor performance” *(People v Robinson,*39 AD3d 1266, 1267 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 869 [2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see People v Socrates,*307 AD2d 546 [2003]). In any event, defendant’s contention lacks merit. The record establishes that defense counsel made appropriate pretrial motions, sought relevant discovery and preserved defendant’s right to raise defenses by filing a notice of intent to offer psychiatric evidence, and defendant failed to demonstrate that defense counsel lacked a legitimate reason for not pursuing such defenses *(see People v Wheeler,*249 AD2d 774, 775 [1998]). Defendant also failed to demonstrate that there was any basis for defense counsel to request an independent autopsy *(see generally id.; People v Radtke,*152 Misc 2d 744 [1991]). Finally, to the extent that defendant relies upon matters outside the record in support of her contention, those matters must be raised by way of a motion pursuant to CPL article 440 *(see People v Lopez,*28 AD3d 234, 235 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 758 [2006]). Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Carni, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          11,876
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     3817
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     13,142
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                            5898
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2211
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   41027
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         10,532
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,957
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,360
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    41,027
<SALES>                                         30,800
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,800
<CGS>                                           26,231
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   44,242
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,011
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2774
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,497
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,789
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,286
<DISCONTINUED>                                   8,160
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    25,446
<EPS-BASIC>                                       5.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     5.54


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Elwood Shepard, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Heavenly Hot Dogs, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge: (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78 o(d)); 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 15, 2010  /s/ Elwood Shepard Elwood Shepard President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been furnished to Heavenly Hot Dogs, Inc. and will be retained by Heavenly Hot Dogs, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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
 Eastern Regional Research Center: Wyndmoor, PA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    About ERRC
                        Greetings from the Director
                                    Directions/Lodging
                                    History and Accomplishments
                    Our Work
                        Biomass Pyrolysis Research
                                    IPMP 2013
                                    IPMP Dynamic Prediction
                                    IPMP Global Fit
                                    Pathogen Modeling Program (PMP)
                                    Predictive Microbiology Information Portal (PMIP)
                                    PoultryFARMSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home People & Locations







Anthony  Sagastume
                        Core Technologies

                        




                        
                        Phone: (215) 233-6709
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
PAGE 1 – ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PAUL M. HAYDEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:14-cv-1060-AC

ORDER

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation 

in this case on December 16, 2014. Dkt. 18. Judge Acosta recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion 

to Strike (Dkt. 13) be granted in part and denied in part. No party has filed objections.

Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in 

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(C). If a party files objections to a magistrate’s findings and recommendations, “the 

court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed 

findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

If no party objects, however, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the 

Case 3:14-cv-01060-AC Document 20 Filed 01/26/15 Page 1 of 2
PAGE 2 – ORDER

Act], intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections 

are filed.”). Nor does the Act “preclude further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . 

under a de novo or any other standard.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. And the Advisory Committee 

Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court 

review the magistrate’s findings and recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.”

As no party has made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory 

Committee and reviews Judge Acosta’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the 

face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Acosta’s

Findings and Recommendation, Dkt. 18. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Dkt. 13) is GRANTED in 

part and DENIED in part. The United States’ Third and Fifth Affirmative Defenses are STRUCK 

with leave to replead.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 26th day of January, 2015.

/s/ Michael H. Simon

Michael H. Simon

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01060-AC Document 20 Filed 01/26/15 Page 2 of 2
#### ESSEX COUNTY RETAIL LIQUOR STORES ASSOCIATION, APPELLANT-PETITIONER, v. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL OF THE CITY OF NEWARK, *ET AL.,*RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

*Messrs. Brass & Brass*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Bum, Biunno & Tomplcins*and *Mr. Herbert D. Kelleher*for the respondents.

February 14, 1961.

Denied.
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
 Research Program Support: Ames, IA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Ames, Iowa National Animal Disease Center Research Program Support People & Locations







Nathan  Anderson
                        Research Program Support

                        




                        
                        Animal Caretaker
                        Phone: (515) 337-7248
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21
- 0520 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: SCOTT A. ST. CLAIR,

Petit io ner and Appellee, and CLARICE J. ST. CLAIR,

Respondent and Appellant. ORDER OF MEDIATOR AP POINTMENT

This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parti es having failed to j oint ly and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c), IT IS ORDERED THAT **KD Feeback,**  whose name appears next on th e list of attorneys desiring appo int me nt as mediators fo r Domesti c Relat io ns appeals which is maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appo int ed to co nduct th e mediat io n process required by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED th at th e time peri ods set fo rth in M.R.App.P., 7(5)(d) shall run from the date of this order of appoint me nt . A true copy

of this order is being mailed to counsel of record f or the parti es, or to th e parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof. DATED thi s November 16, 2021.

Bowen Greenwood , Cl erk of the Supreme Court
c: David B. Gallik, Michelle H. Vanisko 11/16/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0520
July 23, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ARTURO DANIEL PEREZ, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00631-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in judgment. 

The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED, and that this decision be certified 

below for observance.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                         SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                    27,205
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          27,205
<PP&E>                                     1,173
<DEPRECIATION>                               257
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            28,635
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      2,639
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                  (4,334)
<OTHER-SE>                                21,662
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              28,635
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             240
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             11,315
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                             (11,315)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO

MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

To the 137th District Court of Lubbock County, Greeting:

BEFORE our Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, on December

10, 2014, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Gabriel Luna v. The State of Texas

Case Number: 07-13-00422-CR Trial Court Number: 2011-432,524

was determined and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated December 10, 2014, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis, no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of said Court of

Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things to have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Honorable Justices of our said Court, with the seal thereof

annexed, at the City of Amarillo on July 7, 2015.

Vivian Long

VIVIAN LONG, CLERK

FILE COPY
Sherwood J. Reese 

Sherwood.reese@comcast.net 

Drew L. Johnson, P.C. 

sherwoodreese@comcast.net 

1700 Valley River Drive 

Eugene, OR 97401 

(541) 434-6466 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES COURT DISTRICT COURT 

ROXIE ANN KUHNS, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Commissioner of Social Security 

Administration, 

Defendant. 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

Civil No. 6:15-cv-00430-AC 

ORDER FOR ATTORNEY FEES 

PURSUANT TO EAJA 

After considering the Stipulated Motion of the parties submitted herein, Order hereby 

grants that Commissioner shall pay Plaintiff's attorney the sum of $7587.20 upon verification 

that Plaintiff has no debt to the government which qualifies for offset against the awarded fees, 

pursuant to the reasoning in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 130 S. Ct. 2521, 2527 (2010) (EAJA 

awards fees subject "to a federal administrative offset if the Litigant has outstanding federal 

debts") for full settlement of all claims for fees under EAJA. 

1 - ORDER FOR ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO EAJA 

Case 6:15-cv-00430-AC Document 22 Filed 04/27/16 Page 1 of 2
If Plaintiff has no such federal debt, payment of $7587.20 shall be made to Plaintiff's 

attorneys, Drew L. Johnson, PC, and mailed to their office at 1700 Valley River Drive, Eugene, 

OR 97401. If Plaintiff has such debt, the check for any remaining funds after offset shall be 

made out to Plaintiff and mailed to counsel's office at the address provided above. 

(~ .·; ;< '1. 

IT IS so ORDERED this day of • .. J4r1 . ~/ .. '2016 

PRESENTED BY: 

By: /s/ DREW L. JOHNSON 

Drew L. Johnson, OSB #75200 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff 

rl '') /",, 

!/ ' 

U.S. Bi;;!f:i,*fttt!;;~./Magistrate Judge . 

i/ 

2 - ORDER FOR ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO EAJA 

Case 6:15-cv-00430-AC Document 22 Filed 04/27/16 Page 2 of 2
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 Quarterly Report of Young Innovations, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that based on their 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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.




 /s/ Alfred E. Brennan, Jr.
---------------------------
Alfred E. Brennan, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer



 /s/ Arthur L. Herbst, Jr.
---------------------------
Arthur L. Herbst, Jr.
Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer


August 8, 2003
1 – ORDER 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

JEAN LANGDON,

Plaintiff, No. 3:15-cv-01342-PK

v. OPINION AND ORDER

CAROLYN W. COLVIN

Commissioner, Social Security

Administration, 

Defendants. 

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued a Findings & Recommendation [18] on September 6, 

2016, recommending that the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision be reversed and the 

case remanded for the immediate payment of benefits. Defendant has timely filed objections [20] 

to the Findings & Recommendation. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). 

Case 3:15-cv-01342-PK Document 24 Filed 12/15/16 Page 1 of 2
2 – ORDER 

When a party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings & 

Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the 

Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Dawson v. Marshall, 

561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 

2003) (en banc).

I have carefully considered Defendant’s objections and conclude there is no basis to 

modify the Findings & Recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the 

record de novo and find no errors in the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak’s Findings & Recommendation [18], and 

therefore, the Commissioner’s final decision is REVERSED and this case is REMANDED for an 

immediate award of benefits.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this _______ day of ____________________, 2016. 

 

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01342-PK Document 24 Filed 12/15/16 Page 2 of 2