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**

|   | (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/ Baowen                Ren                                                                                            |   |   |   |
| Baowen                      RenChief                      Executive Officer Dated:                      January 19, 2007 |   |   |        |

----
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 32.1

                     CERTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURE 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 Amended Annual Report of Infinity  Capital  Group,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form  10-KSB/A for the period  ending  December 31, 2005 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report")  I,  Gregory H.  Laborde,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of the  Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 USC section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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: January 29, 2007



/s/Gregory H. Laborde
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory H. Laborde, Chief Executive Officer and President


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

MISC. NO. 05-22 

IN RE: RECALL OF RETIRED JUDGE

O R D E R

 Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7257(b)(1), eligible retired Judges of the Court may be recalled 

by the Chief Judge when further service is needed by the Court. Retired Judge Robert N. Davis, 

having complied with 38 U.S.C. § 7257, is designated a recall-eligible retired Judge. The Chief 

Judge of the Court has determined that, if recalled, Judge Davis would provide substantial service 

necessary to meet the needs of the Court. 

 Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is 

 ORDERED that, effective January 12, 2022, for a 30-day period ending February 11, 2022, 

recall-eligible retired Judge Davis is recalled from retired status in accordance with 38 U.S.C. § 

7257(b)(1). Judge Davis shall have and exercise all the judicial powers and duties of the office of a 

Judge in active service and shall otherwise perform substantial service for the Court as requested by 

the Chief Judge. It is further 

 ORDERED that Judge Davis shall serve in recalled status during this 30-day period to review 

and decide appeals, motions, and other filings with the Court related to cases originally assigned to 

him during his recall service last concluded on December 31, 2021. If necessary, and with his 

consent, Judge Davis's service may be extended for up to 90 days. 

 

DATED: January 12, 2022 BY THE COURT: 

MARGARET BARTLEY 

 Chief Judge
COURT OF A PPEAL S EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEX AS ELPASO, TEXAS

I N RE: FERNAND O MORAL ES,

Relator. § § § § § § No. 08-11-00077- CR

AN ORI GI

NAL PROCEEDI

NG I N MANDA MUS

MEMORAN DUM OP INION ON P ETIT ION F OR WRIT OF M ANDAM US Relator is imprisoned pursuant to a deter minate sentenc e rende red in a juvenile proce eding

. See In re F.M. , 238 S.W .3d 837, 838 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2007, pet. denied)

. On Fe bruar y 28, 2011, he fi led a pro se petition for writ of mandamus to compel the trial court either to rule or hold an evidentiar y hear ing on a habea s application. Relator claimed that he filed an application for writ of habea s corpus in the trial court in J une 2010 and that the court failed on rule on the application. He provided a copy of a habea s application, dated J une 1, 2010, and a copy of a letter reque sting a ruling from the trial judge

. On Marc h 11, 2011, this Court reque sted that the Real Party in I ntere st respond to the petition on or befor e April 10, 2011. We did not rec eive a response from the Real Party , but

we did rec eive a notice of appea l in which Relator soug ht to appea l the denial of his habea s appl ication. We have now rec eived the cler k’s rec ord for that appea l. I t includes a habea s ap p l ication dated J une 1, 2010, and the trial court’s order of Marc h 24, 2011, deny ing the application. This Court “may , on aff

idavit or otherwise, as the court may deter mine, asce rtain the matters of fac t that are nece ssary t o t h e p roper exercise of its jurisdiction.” T E X .G O V ’ T C O D E A N N .§ 22.220(c) (West Supp. 2010). We may also take judicial notice of the rec ord in a rela ted case . See

Tello v. Bank One, N.A. , 218 S.W .3d 109, 113 n.4 (Tex.App.--Houston [14t h Dist.] 2007, no pet.). The re co rd for Relator’s appea l demonstrates that Relator has rec eived the relief reque sted in his mandamus petition. Acc ording ly , the petition for wr it of mandamus is dismis sed as moot.

J une 15, 2011 ANN CRAWFORD McCL URE, J ustice Be fore Chew, C.J ., McClure, a nd Rivera, JJ

. (Do Not Publish)
#### In re Carl Wayne STEWART, Petitioner.

Misc. No. 997.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Sept. 2, 2011.

*995Before LOURIE, MOORE, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

ON PETITION

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

Carl Wayne Stewart petitions for a writ of mandamus to direct the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to rule on his motion for en banc review.

On January 20, 2011, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims dismissed Stewart’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that Stewart’s notice of appeal was untimely. Stewart then moved for reconsideration, or in the alternative, panel review, which the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims denied on March 4, 2011. On March 18, 2011, Stewart moved for en banc review, which is still pending. On June 24, 2011, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims stayed Stewart’s appeal in light of *Henderson v. Shinseki,*— U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011). In that case, the Supreme Court held that the 120-day deadline for filing an appeal with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims does not have jurisdictional consequences and can be subject to equitable tolling. *Henderson*is currently before the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for consideration of the issue of equitable tolling, which is an issue that could also be relevant in Stewart’s appeal.

The remedy of mandamus is available only in extraordinary situations to correct a clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial power. *In re Calmar, Inc.,*854 F.2d 461, 464 (Fed.Cir.1988). A party seeking a writ bears the burden of proving that it has no other means of attaining the relief desired, *Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Southern Dist. of Iowa,*490 U.S. 296, 309, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 104 L.Ed.2d 318 (1989), and that the right to issuance of the writ is “clear and indisputable.” *Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc.,*449 U.S. 33, 35, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980).

Based upon the papers submitted, Stewart has not met his burden of showing entitlement to a writ. A court has discretion to stay proceedings in exercising its inherent authority to control the disposition of its cases. *See Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. United States,*124 F.3d 1413, 1416 (Fed.Cir.1997) (whether to stay an action is a matter of the trial court’s discretion). The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims provided a sufficient basis for granting the stay, concluding that its decision in *Henderson*will likely affect the outcome of Stewart’s appeal. Additionally, the present stay is not for such a protracted or indefinite period as to render its issuance an abuse of discretion. *See, e.g., Gould v. Control Laser Corp.,*705 F.2d 1340, 1341 (Fed.Cir.1983) (holding that the stay of a district court patent proceeding pending reexamination of the patent in the Patent and Trademark Office was not “for such a protracted or indefinite period as to render its issuance an abuse of discretion”).

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

The petition is denied.
#### In the Matter of Larry A. DiMatteo, Respondent, v Niagara County Board of Elections, Respondent, and Floyd D. Snyder, Also Known as Floyd W. Snyder, Appellant.

— Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Petitioner DiMatteo commenced this proceeding to validate his petitions designating him as a Liberal Party candidate for the office of Niagara County District Attorney. Respondent Snyder failed to answer or appear on the return date, and the court granted an order validating the designating petitions.

Thereafter, by order to show cause respondent Snyder moved for reargument. The court granted an order permitting reargument and adhered to its prior ruling validating the designating petitions. This appeal is from that part of the court’s order which, on reargument, validated the designating petitions. He requests this court to reverse and grant an order invalidating the petitions.

Snyder is not entitled to the relief he seeks because the court should not have granted his motion for reargument. Since respondent Snyder neither answered nor appeared in opposition to the petition, the order as to him was granted on default, and his proper remedy was to move to open the default. The motion for reargument cannot be treated as one to open the default because his motion papers contain no excuse for his failure to appear or answer. Because it was improperly granted, we reverse the order appealed from and dismiss respondent Snyder’s motion, leaving the prior order in full force and effect. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Doyle, J. — Election Law.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Davis, JJ. (Order entered Aug. 21, 1987.)
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 1, 2023

No. 04-22-00806-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.J.G., A.G., O.M.G., AND J.P.M, CHILDREN

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021-PA-02090

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal of an order terminating appellant’s parental rights, which 

must be disposed of by this court within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed. TEX. R.

JUD. ADMIN. 6.2. The notice of appeal was filed on November 28, 2022. 

Appellant is represented on appeal by appointed counsel, Mr. Shawn Sheffield. 

Appellant’s brief originally was due to be filed on January 12, 2023. Appellant has been granted 

one extension, until January 30, 2023. On January 30, 2023, Mr. Sheffield filed a motion 

requesting an extension until February 7, 2023.

The motion is GRANTED, and Mr. Sheffield is ORDERED to file appellant’s brief no 

later than February 7, 2023. FURTHER REQUESTS FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME 

WILL BE DISFAVORED.

It is so ORDERED February 1, 2023.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:__________________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ, 

 CLERK OF COURT
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher Fort, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and the facts, defendant’s motion to suppress granted, and matter remitted to Onondaga County Su*545preme Court, for further proceedings on the indictment. Memorandum: As in the prior appeal by a codefendant *(see, People v Rivers,*129 AD2d 983), we reverse defendant’s judgment and grant his motion to suppress because the police lacked legal justification to stop the vehicle in which defendant was riding. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Gorman, J. — burglary, second degree, and other offenses.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 24





                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


         The undersigned, a director of Sybron Dental Specialties, Inc., hereby
constitutes and appoints Stephen J. Tomassi and Gregory D. Waller, or either of
them, his true and lawful attorneys and agents, each with full power and
authority to act as such without the other, to do any and all acts and things
and to execute any and all instruments which either one of said attorneys and
agents may deem necessary or advisable to enable said Corporation to comply with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act"), as amended; and including
specifically, but without limitation of the foregoing, full power and authority
to each of said attorneys and agents to sign the name of the undersigned to the
Form 10-K Annual Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2000, and any
amendment(s) thereto, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant
to the requirements of the Act, the undersigned hereby ratifying and confirming
all that said attorneys and agents, or either of them, shall do or cause to be
done by virtue hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed and delivered these
presents as of the 8th day of December 2000.





                                                              /s/ Dennis Brown
                                                              ----------------
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32(1)

                WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                            OF CNA SURETY CORPORATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
          (AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of CNA Surety Corporation (the
"Company"), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

     -    The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June
          30, 2006 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

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

Dated: July 31, 2006


/s/ John F. Welch
-------------------------------------
John F. Welch
President and Chief Executive Officer

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

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5981 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 30, 2010 

Received 

AUGUST 2, 2010 

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 

Affairs 

AN ACT 

To increase the flexibility of the Secretary of Housing and 

Urban Development with respect to the amount of premiums charged for FHA single family housing mortgage 

insurance, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 5981 RFS

1 SECTION 1. MORTGAGE INSURANCE PREMIUMS. 

2 (a) FLEXIBILITY.—Subparagraph (B) of section 

3 203(c)(2) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 

4 1709(c)(2)(B)) is amended— 

5 (1) in the matter preceding clause (i)— 

6 (A) by striking ‘‘shall’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘may’’; and 

8 (B) by striking ‘‘0.50 percent’’ and insert9 ing ‘‘1.5 percent’’; and 

10 (2) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘shall be in an 

11 amount not exceeding 0.55 percent’’ and inserting 

12 ‘‘may be in an amount not exceeding 1.55 percent’’. 

13 (b) IMPLEMENTATION.—The Secretary may adjust 

14 the amount of any initial or annual premium charged pur15 suant to subsection (a) through notice published in the 

16 Federal Register or mortgagee letter. Such notice or mort17 gagee letter shall establish the effective date of any pre18 mium adjustment therein. 

19 SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY. 

20 The Assistant Secretary of the Department of Hous21 ing and Urban Development who is the Federal Housing 

22 Commissioner shall appear before the Committee on 

23 Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs of the Senate and 

24 the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Rep25 resentatives within 270 days after the enactment of this 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 5981 RFS

1 Act to discuss the finances, including premiums, of the 

2 Federal Housing Administration. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 30, 2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report ofSouth Shore Resources Inc.(the "Company")on Form 10-KSB for the year endedDecember 31, 2007as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I,Michael Kabin, Chief Executive 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:

| | 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| |   

Dated this 11thday of April, 2008.

MICHAEL KABINMichael KabinChief Executive Officer























---
Exhibit 99.2




                 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                    SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Peter Kiewit Sons', Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Michael J. Piechoski, 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:

          (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.





Michael J. Piechoski
Chief Financial Officer
November 12, 2002
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Abel CRUZ-GARCIA, also known as Able Cruz, also known as Abel Cruz, also known as Abel Garcia Cruz, also known as Abel Cruz Garcia, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-20383

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 21, 2011.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Abel Cruz-Garcia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Cruz-Garcia has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit32.2

Certification of CFO Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Reporton Form 10-K of Alamosa Holdings, Inc. (the"Company") for the fiscal year ended December31, 2004, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the "Report"), I, KendallCowan, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of myknowledge:

|  |           |                                                                                                                    |
|--|-----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (1)  | The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934;and |

|  |           |                                                                                                                                                    |
|--|-----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (2)  | The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

/s/ Kendall Cowan

|  |
|--|
|  |  |
|  |

Name:    KendallCowan Title:       Chief Financial OfficerDate:       March 2, 2005

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

----