alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350,CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of UNOVA, Inc. (the “Company”) for the periodended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Larry D. Brady, Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, that:

 

(1)   The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2)          The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Larry D. Brady        |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| Larry D. Brady            |   |
| *Chief Executive Officer* |   |
| August 9, 2004            |   |

 

----
#### In the Matter of Iris M. Ross, Appellant, v Jerome Ross, Respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 to modify an order of protection issued upon consent on May 5, 1987, the petitioner wife appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Capilli, J.), entered March 31, 1988, as, after a hearing, dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

On May 5, 1987, an order of protection was issued by the Family Court, Nassau County, on consent and without an admission of any wrongful conduct by the respondent. The order directed the respondent to abstain from committing any acts of disorderly conduct, harassment, menacing, reckless endangerment, assault or attempted assault against the petitioner. The application at issue on this appeal sought a modification of the order of protection to add a provision ordering the respondent to remain away from the marital residence because he had committed a family offense within the meaning of Family Court Act article 8 *(see,*Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; § 821 [1]). At the time of the hearing in Family Court a divorce action between the parties was pending. Significantly, the petitioner’s application in the divorce action for the temporary exclusive occupancy of the marital residence had been denied. Upon renewal, the order denying the petitioner exclusive occupancy of the marital residence was sustained. In denying the application, the Supreme Court found no evidence that the respondent would endanger the safety or welfare of the petitioner.

Upon our review of the record, we find the petitioner failed to demonstrate by a fair preponderance of the evidence *(see,*Family Ct Act § 832) that the acts of the respondent violated any of the enumerated crimes or violations listed in Family Court Act § 812 *(see, Roofeh v Roofeh,*138 Misc 2d 889; *Hayes v Hayes,*131 Misc 2d 317; *Di Donna v Di Donna,*72 Misc 2d *581231). Accordingly, the Family Court properly refused to expand the prior order of protection to direct the respondent to remain away from the marital residence *(cf, Merola v Merola,*146 AD2d 611; *Kilmer v Kilmer,*109 AD2d 1007). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 24.1
 POWER OF ATTORNEY
   SIGNATURE
    
    TITLE
    
    DATE/s/ Stephen A. Wells
    
    Chairman of the Board
    
    February 22, 2010Stephen A. Wells/s/ Martin Lambert
    
    Director
    
    February 22, 2010Martin Lambert/s/ S. James Nelson
    
    Director
    
    February 22, 2010S. James Nelson/s/ Mark G. Papa
    
    Director
    
    February 22, 2010Mark G. Papa/s/ Gary L. Rosenthal
    
    Director
    
    February 22, 2010Gary L. Rosenthal/s/ Christopher T. Seaver
    
    Director
    
    February 22, 2010Christopher T. Seaver/s/ Douglas E. Swanson
    
    Director
    
    February 22, 2010Douglas E. Swanson/s/ William T. Van Kleef
    
    Director
    
    February 22, 2010William T. Van Kleef
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>               9
<MULTIPLIER>            1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           7,297
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             308
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                12,108
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     31,111
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        165,078
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,383
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 224,970
<DEPOSITS>                                     164,322
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,553
<LONG-TERM>                                     25,971
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            27
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,124
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 224,970
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,123
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  475
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   126
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 3,724
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,292
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,603
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,121
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       40
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  31
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,493
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    804
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         804
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       487
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.21
<LOANS-NON>                                        122
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,348
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        6
<RECOVERIES>                                         1
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 1383
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              1383
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### REED, Respondent, v. CHILSON et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.

January 18, 1894.)

Action by De Witt C. Reed against Nathaniel Chilson and another.

No opinion. Judgment appealed from affirmed, with costs. See 16 N. Y. Supp. 744.
#### *In re*BERNSTEIN, Ralph Morton

(MR 21049)

Chicago, IL

*681Order of the Court:

The petition by the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission for leave to file exceptions to the report and recommendation of the Review Board is allowed. Respondent Ralph Morton Bernstein is suspended from the practice of law for three years and until he makes restitution of $54,963.83, with interest, plus $4,500 attorney’s fees, to Ina Green. Respondent Ralph Morton Bernstein shall reimburse the Client Protection Program Trust Fund for any Client Protection payments arising from his conduct prior to the termination of the period of suspension.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12

- 11281 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
DOMINGO RODRIGUEZ

- NOYOLA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12

- CR

- 148

- 1

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Domingo Rodriguez

- Noyola appeals from the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. After declining to decrease his sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 for acceptance of respon sibility, the district court sentenced Rodriguez

Noyola to 210 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 2, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 12-11281 Document: 00512486598 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/02/2014No. 12

- 11281
On appeal, Rodriguez

- Noyola argues that the district court erred by concluding that he did not warrant the adjustment for acceptanc e of responsibility because he frivolously challenged relevant conduct in his objections to the presentence report. Because he did not object on this basis while before the district court, we review this issue for plain error. See United States v. Medina

- Anicacio , 325 F.3d 638, 647 (5th Cir. 2003). Rodriguez

Noyola has not shown that the district court plainly erred in determining that his objections to the PSR were frivolous. The district court therefore did not err by concluding that he acted in a man ner inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility by frivolously challenging relevant conduct that the district court determined to be true. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, c mt. n.1(A)

. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-11281 Document: 00512486598 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/02/2014
# Examen de Naturalización y Recursos para Estudio

DHS publicó una notificación en el Registro Federal en la que anuncia planes para llevar a cabo un examen experimental con cambios propuestos al examen de Naturalización, con voluntarios de organizaciones comunitarias (CBO). USCIS ofrecerá un enlace virtual inicial el 28 de abril de 2023 para brindar una descripción general de los cambios propuestos y el examen experimental. Usted puede enviar cualquier comentario sobre el examen experimental a natzredesign22@uscis.dhs.gov. A medida que surjan avisos e información adicional, los publicaremos en esta página del Centro de Recursos para la Ciudadanía.

Tenemos disponible una nueva serie de videos de cuatro partes que resume la entrevista y el examen de naturalización. Esta serie de videos es un recurso útil para aquellos que desean obtener más información o se están preparando para la entrevista de naturalización.

En esta sección del Centro de Recursos para la Ciudadanía encontrará información sobre los requisitos del examen de naturalización, materiales de estudio para el examen de inglés y educación cívica, incluidas tarjetas didácticas, guías de estudio de bolsillo, videos o exámenes de práctica interactivos e información sobre actualizaciones o cambios en el examen de naturalización. También ofrecemos recursos de ciudadanía en otros idiomas.

Estudie para el ExamenEncuentre materiales de estudio para prepararse para el examen de inglés y de educación cívica.

Desarrollo de Rediseño del Examen de Naturalización 2022Encuentre información sobre los planes para actualizar el examen de naturalización actual.

Actualizaciones al Examen de Educación CívicaRevise si hay cambios en las respuestas del examen de educación cívica que pudieran haber cambiado debido a elecciones o nombramientos.

Recursos Multilingües sobre Ciudadanía Encuentre materiales de estudio en otros idiomas.

04/25/2023

0 / 2000Para proteger su privacidad, por favor no incluya ninguna información personal en sus comentarios. Revise nuestra Política de Privacidad.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6058 

To ensure that the housing assistance programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Veterans Affairs 

are available to veterans and members of the Armed Forces who have 

service-connected injuries and to survivors and dependents of veterans 

and members of the Armed Forces. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 30, 2010 

Mr. PAULSEN (for himself and Mr. MINNICK) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To ensure that the housing assistance programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the 

Department of Veterans Affairs are available to veterans 

and members of the Armed Forces who have serviceconnected injuries and to survivors and dependents of 

veterans and members of the Armed Forces. 

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


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6058 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Wounded Warrior and 

3 Military Survivor Housing Assistance Act of 2010’’. 

4 SEC. 2. AVAILABILITY OF HOUSING PROGRAMS. 

5 The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 

6 and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall take such ac7 tions as may be necessary to ensure that the housing as8 sistance programs administered by such Secretaries, in9 cluding mortgage insurance and home loan programs, are 

10 accessible by and available to, and address the particular 

11 needs and circumstances of, veterans and members of the 

12 Armed Forces who have service-connected injuries and 

13 survivors and dependents of veterans and members of the 

14 Armed Forces. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
Priority

1=Law/reg/directive

2=Mission-critical

3=Frequently requested

4=Other

(Some inventory items 

may fall into more than 

one priority. Assign them 

the highest priority. )

Audience(s)

(May select >1)

All

Agribusiness

Conservationists

Consumers

Cooperatives

Educators/Students

Landowners

Media

Parents/Caregivers

Producers

Researchers

Rural Communities

USDA Employees

Subject Area(s)

(May select >1)

All

AG=Agriculture

EO=Education/Outreach

FN=Food/Nutrition

LR=Laws/Regulations

MT=Marketing/Trade

NRE=Natural 

Resources/Environment

RS=Research/Science

RCD=Rural/Community 

Development

TR=Travel/Recreation

UER=USDA Employee 

Resources

Content Description

(Include why it was selected for inclusion and any site 

analytics or audience feedback/usability results.)

Content S

A=Available 

I=In Pro

P=Plan

N/A=Not ap

1 All LR Strategic Plan A

1 All LR e-grants A1 All LR Budget A1 All LR FirstGov A1 All LR White House A1 All LR Grants.gov A1 All LR FOIA A1 All LR Accessibility A1 All LR Privacy A1 All LR EEO A1 All LR Information Quality A1 All LR e-government A1 All LR OMB Circulars A1 All LR Federal Regulations A1 All LR Paperwork Reduction A1 All LR Research Misconduct A1 All LR Legislation on Formula Funds A2 All AG, EO, FN, LR, MT, NRE, 

RS, RCD, UER

Offices & Units A

2 All All Jobs & Opportunities A2 All AG, FN, NRE, RS, RCD National Emphasis Areas/Programs Area A2 All All Funding/Grant Opportunities, Application 

Forms, Information about grants, Funding Database, Award Terms and Conditions

A

2 All MT Doing Business with CSREES A
2 All AG, EO, FN, MT, NRE, RS, 

RCD, UER

Local Extension Offices Data Base A

2 Educators/Student, 

Media, Researchers

AG, EO, FN, MT, NRE, RS, 

RCD, UER

State and National Partners A

2 Researchers RS Annual Report Guidance A2 Agribusiness, 

Educators/Students, 

Researchers, USDA 

Employees

RS Current Research Information System (CRIS) A

3 All All FAQs - funding A3 All AG, EO FN, MT, NRE, RS, 

RCD, UER

Events A

3 All AG, EO, FN, MT, NRE, RS, 

RCD, UER

Impacts of CSREES funding A

3 All AG, EO, FN, MT, NRE, RS, 

RCD, UER

News Releases A

4 All AG, EO, FN, MT, NRE, RS, 

RCD, UER

Newsletters A

4 All AG, EO, FN, MT, NRE, RS, 

RCD, UER

Speeches & Testimony A

4 All AG, EO, FN, MT, NRE, RS, 

RCD, UER

Video A

4 All AG, EO, FN, MT, NRE, RS, 

RCD, UER

White Papers A

4 All AG, EO, FN, MT, NRE, RS, 

RCD, UER

Staff Directory A

4 All AG, EO, FN, MT, NRE, RS, 

RCD, UER

FAQs - generic A
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Paul Ray JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-40915

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 21, 2011.

James Mack Noble, IV, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tyler, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

James Wesley Volberding, Esq., Tyler, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Paul Ray Jackson 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). Jackson has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Jackson’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim generally “cannot be *441resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” *United States v. Cantwell,*470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Jackson’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the 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. Jackson’s motion for authorization to proceed pro se on appeal is DENIED. *See United States v. Wagner,*158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir.1998)

*

 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.
[No. 14242.

Department Two.

July 16, 1917.]

#### Kameo Kawabe, Respondent, v. Continental Life Insurance Company, *Appellant.**1*

Appeal—Jurisdiction of Appellate Court—New Trial on Extrinsic Matters. The appellant cannot move for a new trial, either below or in the supreme court, during the pendency of an appeal, which lodges exclusive jurisdiction in the supreme court and must be disposed of on the record before a rehearing can be asked on matters extrinsic of the' record.

Motion filed in the supreme court June 7, 1917, to vacate a judgment pending appeal therefrom.

Denied.

*Karr*& *Gregory,*for appellant.

*J. B. Keener*and *J. Chas. Dennis,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 166 Pac. 617.

Fullerton, J.

■— The respondent, Kameo Kawabe, on March 2, 1917, obtained a judgment against the appellant, Continental Life Insurance Company, upon a policy of insurance for the death of his wife. The cause was by appeal removed to this court on May 16, 1917. While the cause was pending in this court, appellant moved in the superior court for a vacation of the judgment on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The trial court refused to consider the motion, holding that it had lost jurisdiction of the action. The appellant now moves this court to vacate the judgment and grant a new trial in the court below on the ground of “newly discovered evidence material for the defendant which it could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial of said cause.” The motion further recites:

> “This motion is made in the supreme court of the state of Washington for the reason that the superior court of Pierce county, Washington, has refused to consider the same, basing the refusal on the ground that it has lost jurisdiction in the above matter.”

*258It is the settled rule in this state that an appeal lodges jurisdiction of the action exclusively in the appellate court, and that the lower court has no jurisdiction other than to do those things necessary or specially provided by statute for making the appeal effective. *Aetna Ins. Co. v. Thompson,*34 Wash. 610, 76 Pac. 105; *State ex rel. Mullen v. Superior Court,*15 Wash. 376, 46 Pac. 402; *Canada Settlers’ Loam & Trust Co. v. Murray,*20 Wash. 656, 56 Pac. 368.

It is the rule also that this court, being a court of appellate jurisdiction, must determine the cause upon the record as made. It has no power to grant new trials, open the cause for further evidence, or authorize the trial court to do so while it still retains jurisdiction of the cause. The appellant’s remedy, if any it now has, necessitates a disposal of the cause in this court before it may ask a rehearing of the cause on matters extrinsic of the record. *Denny-Renton Clay & Coal Co. v. Sartori,*87 Wash. 545, 151 Pac. 1088.

The motion is denied.

Ennis, C. J., Paekee, Mount, and Hoecomb, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.1 

 

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 

RULE 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a) UNDER THE EXCHANGE ACT 

 

I, Roger D. Linquist, certify that: 

 

1. I havereviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of MetroPCS, Inc.; 

 

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

 

3. Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report; 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

c) Disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

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

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting. 

 

Date: March 26, 2004 

 

/s/ Roger D. Linquist 

Roger D. Linquist 

Chief Executive Officer