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, the undersigned officer of Obsidian Enterprises,
Inc.  (the  "Company")  certifies  that the  annual  report  on Form 10-K of the
Company for the fiscal year ended  October 31, 2001, as amended by Amendment No.
1,  fully  complies  with  the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information  contained in that Form 10-K
fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

Dated: August 25, 2003                  /s/ Timothy S. Durham
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Timothy S. Durham
                                        Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
1 – OPINION AND ORDER 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

JEFFREY BELL,

No. 3:15-cv-02176-SB

Plaintiff,

OPINION AND ORDER

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant. 

MOSMAN, J., 

On August 29, 2017, Magistrate Judge Beckerman issued her Findings and 

Recommendation [93] (F&R), recommending that pro se Plaintiff’s Motions for Summary 

Judgment [62] and [87] be DENIED. Judge Beckerman also recommended that Defendant’s 

Motion to Strike [74] be DENIED AS MOOT, and that Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash [81] be 

DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff filed a response to the F&R that indicated he did not object [95]. 

DISCUSSION 

The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may 

file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, 

but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to 

make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or 

recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court 
2 – OPINION AND ORDER 

is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of 

the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 

(9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R 

depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, 

or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

Upon review, I agree with Judge Beckerman’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R 

[93] as my own opinion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this __ day of September, 2017. 

_______________________

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN

Chief United States District Judge 

22

 /s/ Michael W. Mosman
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 3:15-cv-01953-MO Document 1-4 Filed 10/16/15 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Case 3:15-cv-01953-MO Document 1-4 Filed 10/16/15 Page 2 of 2
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D2023

- 1863

_____________________________
K EONAUDRE H AKIM P ATTERSON , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Linda L. Nobles , Judge

.

July 22, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , R OBERTS , and R AY , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Candice Kaye Brower, Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, and Michael Jerome Titus, Assistant Regional Conflict Counsel, Tallahas see; Elizabeth Ann Amond, Assistant Regional Conflict Counsel, Pensacola
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Damaris Esperanza Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned hereby certifies that:

> 
(1) I have reviewed the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P.  (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;

(2) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(3) The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P. 

 

By:  Inland Real Estate Investment Corporation
Exhibit 32.1



Visual Networks, Inc.



Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of Visual Networks, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, on the date hereof:



| | (a) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|                                     
|/s/ Lawrence S. Barker               
|Lawrence S. Barker                   
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|August 10, 2004                      



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
Visual Networks, Inc. and will be retained by Visual Networks, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2006244EN.01002101.xml

| 11.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/21

---

Notice inviting applications for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block E16 of the Dutch continental shelf

(2006/C 244/06)

The Minister for Economic Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands hereby gives notice that an application has been received for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block E16 as indicated on the map appended as Annex 3 to the Mining Regulation (Mijnbouwregeling) (Government Gazette (Staatscourant) 2002, No 245).

Mijnbouwregeling

Staatscourant

With reference to Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons and the publication required by Article 15 of the Mining Act (Mijnbouwwet) (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees (Staatsblad) 2002, No 542), the Minister for Economic Affairs hereby invites interested parties to submit an application for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block E16.

Mijnbouwwet

Staatsblad

The Minister for Economic Affairs is the competent authority for the granting of authorisations. The criteria, conditions and requirements referred to in Articles 5(1), 5(2) and 6(2) of the Directive are set out in the Mining Act (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 2002, No 542).

Applications may be submitted during the 13 weeks following the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union and should be sent to the Minister for Economic Affairs, for the attention of the Director for the Energy Market, Prinses Beatrixlaan 5, The Hague, Netherlands, and marked ‘personal’.

Official Journal of the European Union

Applications submitted after the expiry of this period will not be considered.

A decision on the applications will be taken not later than twelve months after this period has expired.

Further information can be obtained from the following telephone number: (31-70) 379 72 98.

---
Exhibit 16.1
Aphrodite Software Corporation
Form 10-KSB






				June 6, 2001


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C., 20549

Re:  Aphrodite Software Corporation.

We were previously the independent accountants for the Company
and on June 7, 2000, we reported on the financial statements of
the Company for the years ended February 29, 2000 and February
28, 1999.

We have read item 8 of the Form 10-KSB of Aphrodite Software
Corporation, and we agree with the statements contained therein
as they related to our firm.

Very truly yours,



HJ & Associates, LLC
Certified Public Accountants
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1596

CHRISTINE M. OWEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY; NICOLE M. DILELLA, both individually and in her 

official capacity as Liberty University CES faculty/professor; MARY DEACON, 

both individually and in her official capacity as Liberty University CES faculty and 

CACREP liaison; DENISE DANIEL, both individually and in her official capacity 

as Liberty University CES faculty/professor; ELIAS MOITINHO, both individually 

and in his official capacity as Liberty University CES faculty; ERIC CAMDEN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (6:19-cv-00007-NKM-RSB)

Submitted: December 8, 2021 Decided: January 13, 2022

Before NIEMEYER, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christine M. Owen, Appellant Pro Se. Heidi Elizabeth Siegmund, Summer Speight, 

MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Christine M. Owen appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion 

to dismiss Owen’s civil complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); granting Defendants’ 

motion to strike Owen’s surreply; and dismissing as moot all outstanding motions, 

including Owen’s motion for summary judgment. We have reviewed the record and find 

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Owen v. Liberty 

Univ., No. 6:19-cv-00007-NKM-RSB (W.D. Va. Apr. 13, 2020). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2006 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2006

 To amend the Act establishing the Keweenaw National Historical Park, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 29, 1998

Mr. Abraham (by request) introduced the following bill; which was read 
  twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Act establishing the Keweenaw National Historical Park, 
                        and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
That section 9(c) of the Act to establish the Keweenaw National 
Historical Park (Public Law 102-543, approved October 27, 1992), is 
amended as follows:
            (1) In paragraph (A), by striking ``from nominees'' and 
        inserting ``after consideration of nominees''.
            (2) In paragraph (B), by striking ``from nominees'' and 
        inserting ``after consideration of nominees''.
            (3) In paragraph (C), by striking ``from nominees'' and 
        inserting ``after consideration of nominees''.
            (4) In paragraph (D), by striking ``from nominees'' and 
        inserting ``after consideration of nominees''.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Dorothy Rutherford, Deceased. Viola Graves, Appellant; Joseph Alleyne, Respondent.

— In a will construction proceeding, the petitioner appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County (Laurino, S.), dated February 27, 1986, which, *inter alia,*invalidated the will of the decedent Dorothy Rutherford, *313determined that intestacy resulted, and denied the petitioner’s application to impose a constructive trust.

Ordered that the decree is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In 1981, the decedent and her husband executed a joint will leaving all of their property to each other and appointing each other executor and executrix, respectively. The will further provided that in the event of a common disaster, both of their estates would pass to the petitioner, Viola Graves, and one Billy Harris, who, in that event, would also serve as executrix and executor, respectively, of the estate. There was no provision governing the disposition of the estate of the survivor if death was not simultaneous.

The decedent died in 1984, her husband and the aforementioned Billy Harris having predeceased her. Her sole surviving relative and intestate distributee was a half brother, the respondent herein.

The petitioner instituted this will construction proceeding, arguing that the decedent intended that the petitioner inherit the estate, but because of the attorney’s drafting error, the will contained no provision therefor. The petitioner thus sought a construction of the will which would effectuate the decedent’s purported wishes, or, alternatively, requested that a constructive trust be imposed on the estate’s assets. The Surrogate held that the estate must be distributed in intestacy, and denied the petitioner’s application in its entirety. We affirm.

A court may not rewrite a will "in order to give effect to an intention which possibly the testator may have had but which is not revealed by the language used in the will” *(Matter of Nelson,*268 NY 255, 258; *Matter of Imperato,*44 Misc 2d 639, 641, *revd*24 AD2d 598, *revd for reasons stated by Surrogate’s Court*18 NY2d 825; *see, Matter of Kronen,*114 AD2d 1033, *affd*67 NY2d 587). For the same reason, a gift by implication cannot arise, since "the language of the will does not compel the conclusion that [the] decedent intended [the] petitioner to take under the will in these circumstances” *(Matter of Kronen,*67 NY2d 587, 589, *supra; see, Matter of Thall,*18 NY2d 186).

Nor has the petitioner established grounds which would warrant the imposition of a constructive trust *(cf. Sharp v Kosmalski,*40 NY2d 119; *Ladone v Ladone,*121 AD2d 512). As the Surrogate noted, "[a] constructive trust is a 'fraud-rectifying’ trust rather than an 'intent-enforcing’ trust” *(Matter of*
      *314
      *Wells,*36 AD2d 471, 474, *affd*29 NY2d 931, quoting from *Saulia v Saulia,*31 AD2d 640, *mod on other grounds 25*NY2d 80; Bogert, Trusts & Trustees § 471, at 7 [2d ed]). Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.
Jeremy L. Fellows, Esq., OSB #831945 

jl.fellowscomcast.net 

14780 S.W. Osprey Dr., Suite #365 

Beaverton, OR 97007-8070 

Tel: (971) 249-3963 

Fax: (971) 249-3951 

Attorney for Defendant Limitless LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

File Number: 3:15-cv-01298BR 

KAREN HUYCK, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

V. ) NOTICE OF APPEAL 

) 

LIMITLESS LLC, ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

) 

Notice is hereby given that Limitless LLC, Defendant in the above-named case, hereby 

appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the final judgment entered 

in this action on the 21st day of October, 2016, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

s/ Jeremy L. Fellows 

Jeremy L. Fellows, OSB #831945 

Attorney for Defendant Limitless LLC 

Page 1 - NOTICE OF APPEAL 

Case 3:15-cv-01298-BR Document 48 Filed 11/17/16 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:15-cv-01298-BR Document 43 Filed 10/21/16 Page 1 of 2 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND 

KAREN HUYCK, ) No. 3: 15-cv-01298BR 

J 

Plaintiff, ) 

J Judgment 

V. ) 

) 

LIMITLESS, LLC, an Oregon ) 

corporation, ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

This matter having come before the court on cross motions for summary 

judgment, and the court having been briefed in that matter and advised in the 

premises, in accordance with the court's Opinion and Order of September 

261 2016, the court issues the following judgment and award for the plaintiff 

against the defendant for: 

1. $9,513.26, consisting of $4,05663 in unpaid overtime wages and 

$5,456.63 in liquidated damages pursuant the Fair Labor Standards Act 29 USC 

201 etseq. 

1. JUDGMENT 

/4 

/a /ofc2 

Case 3:15-cv-01298-BR Document 48 Filed 11/17/16 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:15-cv-01298-BR Document 43 Filed 10/21/16 Page 2 of 2 

2. All other claims and counterclaims in this action are dismissed with 

prejudice. /0 2/ -Jb 

Hon. Anna Broi1 

U.S. District Court Judge 

2. JUDGMENT 

1OQqe 0Z S 

Case 3:15-cv-01298-BR Document 48 Filed 11/17/16 Page 3 of 3
#### Christopher M. SWAIN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 2007-3170.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 27, 2007.

Christopher M. Swain, pro se.

*ORDER*

On May 31, 2007 the court issued an order allowing Christopher M. Swain (“Swain”) 21 days to notify the court if he had dismissed his petition for review before the Board. Swain has failed to respond within the time allowed.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) This appeal is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2135 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2135

     To amend title 42, United States Code, to protect human life.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 5, 1998

 Mr. Smith of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr. Helms, and Mr. Ashcroft) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend title 42, United States Code, to protect human life.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Human Life Act of 1998''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF HUMAN LIFE.

    (a) In General.--Title 42 of the United States Code shall be 
amended at the end thereof by adding the following new chapter:

                             ``CHAPTER ____

``Sec. ____. Protection of human life
    ``(a) The Congress finds that the right to life is the paramount 
and most fundamental right of a person.
    ``(b) The Congress further finds that the life of each human being 
begins at fertilization.
    ``(c) Upon the basis of these findings, and in the exercise of the 
power of Congress under section 5 of the fourteenth amendment to the 
Constitution, the Congress hereby recognizes that for the purpose of 
enforcing the obligation of the States under the fourteenth amendment 
not to deprive persons of life without due process of law, nor to deny 
persons within their jurisdictions the equal protection of the laws, 
the word `person' applies to all human beings, irrespective of age, 
health, function, or condition of dependency, including their unborn 
offspring at every stage of their biological development including 
fertilization.
    ``(d) No unborn child shall be deprived of life by any person: 
Provided, however, That nothing in this section shall prohibit a law 
allowing justification to be shown for only those medical procedures 
required to prevent the death of either the pregnant woman or her 
unborn offspring as long as such a law requires every reasonable effort 
to be made to preserve the lives of both of them.''.
                                 <all>
```