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 Quarterly Report of Westell Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2006 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, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report. 

| /s/ THOMAS E. MADER         |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|
| Thomas E. Mader             |   |
| February 9, 2007            |   |
|                        |   |
| /s/NICHOLAS C. HINDMAN, Sr. |   |
| Nicholas C. Hindman, Sr.    |   |
| February 9, 2007            |   |

 

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 Westell Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Westell Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-Q.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

QUINCY RAHSAAN ANDERSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

 )

v. ) Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-01067 (UNA) 

)

 )

KIM BROWN, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Petitioner appearing pro se is a state inmate who is awaiting sentence, and he is currently 

designated to Franklin County Corrections Center, located in Columbus, Ohio. He has filed a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus (“Pet.”), ECF No. 1, seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, 

and an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. He challenges his 

conviction, entered on January 11, 2024, by the Franklin County Common Pleas Court, alleging 

that he suffered several constitutional violations, including infringement of his right to speedy trial 

and acts of prosecutorial misconduct. See Pet. at 2–3, 6, 8–9, 11. As a result, he demands that the 

court vacate his conviction. See id. at 11. 

Federal review of state convictions is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 only after the 

exhaustion of available state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). Thereafter, “an application for a 

writ of habeas corpus [ ] made by a person in custody under the judgment and sentence of a State 

court . . . may be filed in the district court for the district wherein such person is in custody or in 

the district court for the district within which the State court was held which convicted and 

sentenced [the petitioner] and each of such district courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction to 

entertain the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). 
First, petitioner has, admittedly, not yet exhausted his state remedies. See Pet. at 3, 9.

Indeed, he asserts that his direct appeal before the Ohio Court of Appeals is still pending. See id. 

Second, even if petitioner had exhausted his state remedies, he was convicted and sentenced in 

Ohio, and is also incarcerated there. See id. at 2. Consequently, after petitioner has exhausted his 

state remedies, he must file his § 2254 petition in the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of Ohio. 

For these reasons, petitioner has no recourse in this District, and his petition will be 

dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). A separate order accompanies this 

memorandum opinion.

__________/s/_____________

Date: May 22, 2024 AMIT P. MEHTA 

United States District Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5736 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5736

  To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to require the 
  owner or lawful possessor of a firearm to report its theft or loss.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 14, 2010

  Mrs. McCarthy of New York (for herself, Mr. Nadler of New York, Mr. 
Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Fattah, Ms. Schwartz, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Israel, 
 and Mr. Kennedy) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to require the 
  owner or lawful possessor of a firearm to report its theft or loss.

    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 ``Firearm Owners Responsibility Act''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT THAT OWNER OR LAWFUL POSSESSOR OF A FIREARM REPORT 
              ITS THEFT OR LOSS.

    (a) Prohibition.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person who lawfully possesses 
or owns a firearm that has been shipped or transported in, or has been 
possessed in or affecting, interstate or foreign commerce, to fail to 
report the theft or loss of the firearm, within 72 hours after the 
person discovers the theft or loss, to the Attorney General and to the 
appropriate local authorities.''.
    (b) Penalties.--Section 924(a)(5) of such title is amended by 
striking ``(s) or (t)'' and inserting ``(t) or (aa)''.
                                 <all>
```
ContiFinancial Corporation
    Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
    Exhibit 12.1 of December 31, 1999 Form 10-Q


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                              Nine months ended
                                                 December 31,
                                              1999           1998    Fiscal 99      Fiscal 98   Fiscal 97  Fiscal 96   Fiscal 95
                                          --------       --------    ---------      ---------   ---------  ---------   ---------
<S>                                       <C>              <C>       <C>             <C>         <C>        <C>          <C>
Summary:
  Earnings                                (569,578)       (63,392)   (255,696)       385,425     297,677    197,996      77,895
  Fixed Charges                            107,564        182,807     233,598        165,904     120,636     74,770      29,635
                                          --------       --------    --------       --------    --------   --------    --------
  Ratio                                      (6.30)(a)      (0.35)     (1.09)(b)       2.32        2.47       2.65        2.63
                                          ========       ========    ========       ========    ========   ========    ========

Earnings:
  Income (loss) before income taxes
    and minority interest                 (675,686)      (246,116)   (493,615)       224,965     177,041    126,536      56,988
  Plus: Interest expense                   107,564        182,807     233,598        165,904     120,636     74,770      29,635
  Less: Equity income/loss in
    unconsolidated subsidiaries             (1,456)           n/a       4,321         (5,444)       --         --          --
  Less: Minority Interest                      n/a            (83)        n/a            n/a         n/a     (3,310)     (8,728)
                                          --------       --------    --------       --------    --------   --------    --------
  Total "Earnings"                        (569,578)       (63,392)   (255,696)       385,425     297,677    197,996      77,895
                                          ========       ========    ========       ========    ========   ========    ========

Fixed Charges:
  Interest expense                         107,564        182,807     233,598        165,904     120,636     74,770      29,635
</TABLE>

(a) The dollar amount of the deficiency at December 31, 1999 was $677,142.
(b) The dollar amount of the deficiency at March 31, 1999 was $489,294.
n/a = Not Applicable
Exhibit 21



Subsidiaries of the Registrant



Except as otherwise indicated, each of the entities identified below are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Registrant.



|1. | Teleservices Technology Company, a Delaware corporation
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------

|2. | Teleservices Management Company, a Delaware corporation
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------

|3. | RMH Teleservices Asia Pacific, Inc., a Delaware corporation
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------

|4. | RMH Teleservices International Inc., a New Brunswick, Canada corporation
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------

|5. | 515963 N.B. Inc., a New Brunswick, Canada corporation
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------

|6. | 516131 N.B. Inc., a New Brunswick, Canada corporation
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------
#### Cato *v.*The State.

Appeal from Montgomery City Court.

Tried before the Hon. A. D. Sayre.

J. J. Woodward, for appellant.

Chas. G. Brown, Attorney-General, for the State.

*693The appellant was indicted, tried 'and convicted for grand larceny.

Tlie judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Opinion by

Haralson, J.
Exhibit 10(s)







EXHIBIT 10(s)




EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION




THIS EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION (this “Agreement Extension”) is entered into effective the
30 day of March, 2010, by and between The Franklin Savings and Loan Company, a savings and loan
association organized under the laws of the State of Ohio (the “Employer”), and Gregory W. Meyers
(the “Employee”).



WITNESSETH:




WHEREAS, the Employee is currently employed as the Vice President of the Employer; and



WHEREAS, the Employer and the Employee are parties to an employment agreement dated August
15, 2004 and amended December 30, 2008 and May 13, 2009 (the “Employment Agreement”); and



WHEREAS, the current expiration date of the Employment Agreement is March 31, 2012; and



WHEREAS, Section 1 of the Employment Agreement provides that the Employer’s Board of Directors
may extend the term of the Employment Agreement; and



WHEREAS, as a result of the skill, knowledge, performance and experience of the Employee, the
Board of Directors of the Employer has determined that the Employment Agreement should be extended;
and



WHEREAS, the Employee desires to continue to serve as the Vice President of the Employer and
consents to the extension of the Employment Agreement;



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants herein contained, the
Employer and the Employee hereby agree as follows:



1. Extension of Term of Employment Agreement. The term of the Employment Agreement is
hereby extended and the Employment Agreement shall terminate on March 31, 2013 (the “Extended
Term”).



2. Effect of Prior Agreements. All of the terms and conditions of the Employment
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect during the Extended Term.



[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK; SIGNATURES FOLLOW]



 


 









 








IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Employer has caused this Agreement Extension to be executed by its
duly authorized officer, and the Employee has consented to and signed this Agreement Extension,
each as of the date first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	EMPLOYER:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Attest:	 	THE FRANKLIN SAVINGS AND LOAN COMPANY	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Margaret Havlin
 


	 	By:

	 	/s/ Gretchen J. Schmidt
 

Name:  Gretchen J. Schmidt
	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	Title:    President	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Attest:	 	EMPLOYEE:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Margaret Havlin	 	/s/ Gregory W. Meyers
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 Secure Computing Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John E. McNulty, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ John E. McNulty                 
|John E. McNulty                     
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|November 6, 2007
#### TODD, Respondent, v. MORTON, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

December 8, 1896.)

Action by Henry H. Todd against Thomas S. Morton.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur.
#### The State v. John Foster.

The 392d article of the Penal Code declares the punishment for fornication. But articles 293, 294, and 295 are confined to adultery alone; and fornication is nowhere defined in the code. (Paschal’s Dig., Arts. 2022-2025.)

No person can be punished unless the offense is defined and the penalty affixed by the written law of the State. (Paschal's Dig., Art. 1605.)

Appeal from Cameron. The case was tried before Hon. Elisha Basse, one of the district judges.

On the 31st of March, 1868, the appellee was indicted in the district court of Cameron county for fornication.

On the 4th of April the defendant filed a motion to quash the indictment, upon the ground that it did not charge the defendant with an offense known to the law.

The court sustained the motion and quashed the indictment, and the state appealed; and the single question determined was, did the court err in quashing the bill?

*B. B. Turner, Attorney General,*for the state.

—Adultery is defined by law. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 2024.) Article 2023 provides that persons guilty of adultery or fornication shall be punished, &c. But for articles 1603 and 1605 there would be no doubt, but I do not feel it my duty to urge the reversal of the judgment of the court below.

*Israel B. Bigelow,*for appellee,

cited the same articles, and insisted that the offense is not defined in the code.

Lindsay, J.

—An indictment for simple fornication does *579not lie under the Penal Code of Texas. The code prescribes that every offense must be defined before it is punishable under the penal laws of the state. A mixed offense of adultery and fornication is defined by the statute, for which each of the parties may be held amenable to the law, and receive the infliction of its penalties. But the definition of this mixed offense is, that the parties must live together in a state of cohabitation. The several provisions of the statute show clearly that the living together in such a state was the specific offense designed to be punished. This is the offense defined as adultery by the statute. The moral offense of fornication is not defined by the code. And it is declared by the code, in Paschal’s Digest, article 1605, “no person shall be punished for any act or omission, as a penal offense, unless the same is expressly defined,” &c. Therefore the indictment, which was for simple fornication, was properly quashed by the court, and the judgment is

Affirmed.
#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Storage                    
csv

      Evaporation                    
csv

      Inflow                    
csv

      Total Release                    
csv

      Pool Elevation                    
csv

      Area                    
csv

      Release Volume                    
csv

      Delta Storage                    
csv

      Inflow Volume                    
csv

#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Storage                    
json

      Evaporation                    
json

      Inflow                    
json

      Total Release                    
json

      Pool Elevation                    
json

      Area                    
json

      Release Volume                    
json

      Delta Storage                    
json

      Inflow Volume                    
json
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

SEP 23, 2011

JOHN LEY

 CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 11-10438 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 8:10-cr-00519-SDM-AEP-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PABLO BALTAZAR-MORALE, 

a.k.a. Sergio Lopez-Luna, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Middle District of Florida

 ________________________

(September 23, 2011)

Before EDMONDSON, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Pablo Baltazar-Morale appeals his sentence of ten months of imprisonment
following the revocation of his supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). BaltazarMorale argues that his sentence is unreasonable. We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion. Baltazar-Morale, a citizen of

Mexico, was convicted of bank fraud, and in February 2010, Baltazar-Morale was

deported from the United States on three years of supervised release subject to the

condition that he refrain from reentering the United States without permission. In

June 2010, Baltazar-Morale reentered the United States using a false identity, and

later he received a sentence of three years of imprisonment for that crime. 

Baltazar-Morale argued for leniency based on his youth, his lack of education, and

his need to support family in Mexico, but the district court was “struck by

[Baltazar-Morale’s] series of determined and unhesitating violations, despite . . .

admonitions from” the court and “his agreement to abide by those obligations.” 

The district court reasonably determined that a sentence of ten months of

imprisonment that ran consecutive to Baltazar-Morale’s three-year sentence for his

illegal reentry would best address the “persistence of his offenses” and his

“disregard for the law,” and would provide “enhanced deterrence and . . . protect

the public.” Baltazar-Morale’s sentence, which is within the guideline range and

falls well below the statutory maximum sentence, is reasonable.

We AFFIRM Baltazar-Morale’s sentence.

2
RIFLE GAP RESERVOIRLatitude: 39.63Longitude: -107.758Elevation: 5943

RIFLE GAP RESERVOIR

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Bison Lake Site Page...



Bison Lake

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Burro Mountain Site Page...



Burro Mountain
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                      31,497,000
<SECURITIES>                                31,499,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               18,421,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            87,986,000
<PP&E>                                      25,326,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             117,681,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       51,671,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               117,681,000
<SALES>                                    115,650,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           115,650,000
<CGS>                                       48,258,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               48,258,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             14,023,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,768,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          9,255,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 9,255,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.42
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 13.2

CHINA MOBILE LIMITED

Certification

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned, XUE Taohai, Executive Director, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of China
Mobile Limited (the Company), hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that the Companys annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: April 27, 2011



/s/    XUE TaohaiName:

XUE TaohaiTitle:

Executive Director, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is
being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 5





Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 1350 of


Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. 1350)





In connection with the Annual Report of Canadian Natural Resources Limited (the “Company”) on the Form 40-F for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas A. Proll, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 results of operations of the Company.





DATED this 25th day of March, 2011.








SIGNED “DOUGLAS A. PROLL”Douglas A. ProllChief Financial Officer and Senior Vice-President, Finance (Principal Financial Officer),Canadian Natural Resources Limited