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

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Baron Energy Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Maguire,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
12th day of December, 2008.


/s/ Michael Maguire
--------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Certification
      of Principal Executive Officer****and Principal 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 Wentworth VI, Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin R. Keating,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.





/s/
                Kevin R. KeatingKevin
                R. Keating
              Principal
                Executive Officer
              Principal
                Financial Officer
              May
                12, 2008
EXHIBIT 31.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO


SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,Andrew Godfrey, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of First Quantum Ventures, 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 misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;




3. Based on my 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 periods presented in this report;




4. The registrant's other certifying 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 we have:




a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure 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, particularly during 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 quarterly report based on such evaluation; and




c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and




5. 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 and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely 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 control over financial reporting.


Date: February 15, 2011By:
/s/ Andrew GodfreyAndrew GodfreyChief Accounting Officer
154 So. 917

#### A. CUNNINGHAM, Adm’r, etc., v. Victoria W. WILKERSON et al., etc.

3 Div. 85.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 10, 1934.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed by appellant.
1

Filed 5/19/14 P. v. Cervantes CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANDREW CERVANTES,

Defendant and Appellant.

C074845

(Super. Ct. No. 13F03051)

On May 8, 2013, defendant Andrew Cervantes and the victim, his girlfriend, 

argued over a prank she had played on defendant. He threatened to beat her and hit her in 

the arm and face, using an open hand six to ten times and a closed fist three times. As a 

result, she suffered a bloody nose, a swollen eye, and an extreme headache for two days. 

Defendant pled no contest to assault by means of force likely to produce great 

bodily injury, reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to Penal Code section 17, 

subdivision (b), in exchange for dismissal of other counts: criminal threats and battery 
2

upon a person with whom defendant had a dating relationship, a misdemeanor, with a 

waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 as to battery. 

The court granted probation subject to certain terms and conditions including 90 

days in jail and participation in a batterer’s treatment program.

Defendant appeals.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening 

brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and 

determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 

25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental 

brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, 

and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination 

of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more 

favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

 ROBIE , J.

We concur:

 HULL , Acting P. J.

 BUTZ , J.
! "!#$%&$#'!#(&)*(#"  +(#&"!##,"!# &	"-.#!$%/000000000000000000000000000

&+$!1$#!0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000  2%!+$($ 3	 2 3	 34%$(!#5!%,$%%6"7 2%!+3$#-''8""8,,/000000000002%!+3(&.#!

4	292:;94 4%$(!#!%,$%%6".&*'((!7

&+$!1$#!*%($!"*%<'!"'!#(

=>?@ABACD@AEF     GHIJKLDM

NOO?EPDQ     GHIJRLDM

SE@ABACD@AEF     GHIJKLTM

NTPDFC>SE@AC>EBUVW=XYZQ>=[DF\>  GHIJ]ILDM

UVW=X^_>?\>FC`YZQ>=[DF\>   GHIJ]IL[M

 *%*'&(00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000  

64&"*#4%$(!#!%,.&"*#.&*'((!7

=>?@ABACD@AEF     GHIJaLDM

=>?@ABACD@AEFU>CZ?A@`bZ@Z?>c   GH]JadLDM

=>?@ABACD@AEFUeDO=QDccGHIJaLTM

NOO?EPDQ     GHIJdLDM

NOO?EPDQU>CZ?A@`bZ@Z?>cGH]JadLfM

SEP>QW>?APD@AP>g?ETZC@SE@ABACD@AEF  GHIJ]aLDM

UeDOUZf_AccAEFGdhJR

  $%4&"*#$'i0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 

4&"*#&'($!"	!"#!(-.&"*#&%$#"*%($!"*%<'!"'!#(/

=>?@ABACD@AEF     GHIJKLDM

=>?@ABACD@AEFjDT>NPDAQDfQ>@Ek?DT>W>@>?_AFD@AEF GHIJKLDM

=>?@ABACD@AEFU>CZ?A@`bZ@Z?>c   GH]JaHLDM

W>QAc@AF\LSEXO>FVF@>?>c@M   GHIJKLDM

NOO?EPDQ     GHIJRLDM

NOO?EPDQjDT>NPDAQDfQ>@Ek?DT>W>@>?_AFD@AEF GHIJRLDM

NOO?EPDQU>CZ?A@`bZ@Z?>cGH]JaHLfM

NOO?EPDQN_>FT_>F@c@E>FZ_>?D@>TD\?ACZQ@Z?DQO?ETZC@cGHIJHLDMlGHIJRLDM

mSEFnjD@>?ADQN\?ACZQ@Z?DQYZQ>=[DF\>oGHIJHLfMLRM

SE@ABACD@AEF     GHIJKLTM

  $%$'-(/ 4&"*#-(/< #"i000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

*%*'&(0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

pqrstuvwsxyqz{{|

}

~qrv|qrvsx



}

ss|xrsv
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Ibrahim QUNBAR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-4738-CR.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 25, 2006.

James M. Branden, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellant.

Jason A. Jones, Assistant United States Attorney, (Emily Berger, Assistant United States Attorney, Roslynn R. Mauskopf, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, on the brief) Brooklyn, NY, for Appellee.

Present: ROGER J. MINER and ROSEMARY S. POOLER, Circuit Judges, *42and JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge.*

*

The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-appellant Ibrahim Qunbar appeals from the August 29, 2005, judgment of conviction entered against him in the Eastern District of New York (Amon, /.) for willfully failing to file a currency report in violation of 31 U.S.C. §§ 5316, 5322. We assume the parties familiarity with the facts, procedural history, and specification of issues on appeal.

In evaluating Qunbar’s claim that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, “[t]he evidence presented at trial should be viewed in the light most favorable to Government, crediting every inference that the jury might have drawn in favor of the Government.” *United States v. Zhou,*428 F.3d 361, 369 (2d Cir.2005). Furthermore, we cannot “substitute our own determinations of credibility or the relative weight of the evidence for that of the jury.” *Id.*at 370. Appellant cannot prevail on a claim of insufficiency of the evidence “if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt.” *Id.*(citation omitted).

Section 5322 of Title 31 of the United States Code makes it a crime to willfully fail to file a currency report as required by 31 U.S.C. § 5316 whenever an individual transports more than $10,000 into or out of the United States. Because Officer Buchan testified that he told Qunbar that he had to fill out a form if he was carrying more than $10,000, that Qunbar reported he was carrying $12,000, and that Qunbar was later found to be carrying more than $22,000, over $17,000 of which was on his person, we cannot find that the evidence was insufficient. The jury was entitled to credit this testimony. Because Buchan testified that Qunbar was *personally*carrying this money, Qunbar’s arguments that he did not know he had to report money his wife was carrying are irrelevant. As to Qunbar’s other arguments, we must defer to the jury’s evaluations of credibility and the weight of the evidence. *Zhou,*428 F.3d at 369-70.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-1146 of The L.L. Knickerbocker Co. Inc. on Form S-8 and in Registration
Statements No. 333-15185, No. 333-37101 and No. 333-59169 on Form S-3 of our
report, which contains an explanatory paragraph regarding substantial doubt
about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern, dated April 12,
2001, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of The L.L. Knickerbocker Co.,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2000.



/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Costa Mesa, California
April 12, 2001
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATIONS

OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form I 0-QSB of Viper Powersports Inc, a Nevada corporation for the Quarter ended March 31, 2007, the undersigned certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to our knowledge, that



(I)
        the Quarterly Report on Form I 0-QSB of Viper Powersports Inc for the Quarter ended March 31, 2007 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 Quarterly Report on Form I 0-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Viper Powersports Inc






Date:
        May 14, 2007




/s/ John LaiJohn Lai, Principal Executive Officer of
Viper Powersports Inc.






Date:
        May 14, 2007




/s/ Jerome PoseyJerome Posey, Principal Financial Officer ofViper Powersports Inc.






---
#### In the Matter of Ithaca City School District, Appellant, v New York State Division of Human Rights et al., Respondents.

Submitted March 19, 2012;

decided March 22, 2012

Reported below, 87 AD3d 268.

Motion by New York State School Boards Association, Inc. for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 19 copies filed within seven days.
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-20309

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VICTOR RAMIRO-SOLIS, also known as Ramiro,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CR-243-2

Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Following his guilty plea to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute

five kilograms or more of cocaine, Victor Ramiro-Solis was sentenced, inter alia,

to 129 months’ imprisonment. He asserts the Government breached his plea

agreement by using information obtained from him in his post-plea debriefing

in determining the applicable drug quantity for sentencing purposes. “This court

reviews a claim of breach of a plea agreement de novo, accepting the district

court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous.” United States v. Lewis, 476

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 22, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

Case: 09-20309 Document: 00511058709 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/22/2010
No. 09-20309

2

F.3d 369, 387 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing United States v. Davis, 393 F.3d 540, 546

(5th Cir. 2004)).

At sentencing, the Government stated that, at debriefing, after entering

the plea agreement, Ramiro admitted to the relevant drug quantity. Ramiro

contends this constitutes a breach of his plea agreement because the

Government’s proffer letter provided that self-incriminating information

provided by Ramiro during debriefing would not be used against him. The

provision in issue requires the Government to comply with Sentencing Guideline

§ 1B1.8(b) (“Use of Certain Information”), under which information known to the

Government prior to entering the plea agreement may be used to determine the

applicable advisory guidelines sentencing range.

The district court found that, through drug ledgers seized during the

investigation (and described in the presentence investigation report), the

Government knew of the drug quantity prior to Ramiro’s debriefing. Further,

the district court stated that it relied solely on these ledgers in determining the

relevant drug quantity. Ramiro failed to rebut the reliability of the ledgers. See

United States v. Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240, 248 (5th Cir. 2005) (“The defendant

bears the burden of showing that the information in the [presentence

investigation report] relied on by the district court is materially untrue.”

(quoting United States v. Alford, 142 F.3d 825, 832 (5th Cir. 1998))). The district

court’s finding that the Government knew the relevant quantity before entering

the plea agreement is not clearly erroneous. Therefore, there was no breach of

that agreement.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 09-20309 Document: 00511058709 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/22/2010
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 945 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 945

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow additional expenses 
for purposes of determining the Hope Scholarship Credit, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 10, 2009

Mr. Brady of Texas (for himself and Mr. Gene Green of Texas) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and 
                                 Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow additional expenses 
for purposes of determining the Hope Scholarship Credit, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``Hope Scholarship Credit Expansion 
Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF HOPE SCHOLARSHIP CREDIT.

    (a) Allowance of Additional Expenses.--Paragraph (1) of section 
25A(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining qualified tuition 
and related expenses) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
                    ``(D) Additional expenses allowed for hope 
                scholarship credit.--For purposes of the Hope 
                Scholarship Credit, such term shall include--
                            ``(i) costs incurred for room and board 
                        that are not in excess of the limitation 
                        imposed under section 529(e)(3)(B)(ii),
                            ``(ii) at the election of the taxpayer, 
                        expenses which would be employment-related 
                        expenses (as defined in section 21(b)) if 
                        attendance at an eligible educational 
                        institution were treated as employment, and
                            ``(iii) books, supplies, and equipment 
                        required for courses of instruction at the 
                        eligible educational institution.
                No credit shall be allowed to the taxpayer under 
                section 21 for the taxable year if the taxpayer elects 
                the application of clause (ii) for such taxable 
                year.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to expenses paid after December 31, 2008 (in taxable years ending after 
such date), for education furnished in academic periods beginning after 
such date.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES NAVY–MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

No. 201700336

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.

ALYNN B. CHAPPELL

Construction Mechanic Constructionman (E-3), U.S. Navy

Appellant

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Commander Jason L. Jones, JAGC, USN.

Convening Authority: Commander, Navy Region Southeast, Naval Air 

Station, Jacksonville, FL.

Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation: Commander George W. 

Lucier, JAGC, USN.

For Appellant: Captain Bree A. Ermentrout, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

Decided 8 February 2018

_________________________

Before MARKS, JONES, and STEPHENS, Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening 

authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). 

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

December 23, 2022

Submitted via Portal

Mr. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick

Office of the Secretariat

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: CFTC Regulation 40.6(d) Notification. AEGIS SEF, LLC Weekly 

Notification of Amended Terms and Conditions

Dear Sir:

Pursuant to Section 40.6(d) of the regulations of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (the “CFTC”, or the “Commission”), AEGIS SEF, LLC (“AEGIS”) hereby notifies 

the Commission that it has amended its Exhibit M AEGIS SEF Rulebook. The amended Exhibit 

M shall become effective December 23, 2022.

A concise explanation and analysis of the rules and their compliance with applicable provisions 

of the Act, including core principles and the Commission’s regulations, is attached hereto as 

Exhibit A. A copy of the Exhibit M Rulebook is attached under separate cover as Exhibit B. A 

redlined version of the Exhibit M Rulebook is attached under separate cover as Exhibit C.

AEGIS hereby certifies that: (i) the amended agreement complies with the Act and the

Commission’s regulations thereunder, and (ii) copy of this submission is being

concurrently posted on AEGIS’s website. There were no substantive opposing views to the

amendments to Exhibit M.

Please contact the undersigned at 832-413-5973 or afurman@aegis-hedging.com with any 

questions regarding this matter.

Andrew Furman

Chief Compliance Officer

AEGIS SEF, LLC

2829 Technology Forest Blvd

Suite 260

The Woodlands, TX 77381
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Exhibit A – Explanation 

Amendment and Explanation Supporting Rule / Core Principle

4.18.4 Clarifying reporting requirements 

for December 5, 2022 re-write compliance

• Incorporated reporting updates from 

December 5, 2022 re-write 

requirements

• Core Principle 1(B)- Reasonable 

Discretion of swap execution facility

• Core Principle 2 – Compliance with 

rules

• Core Principle 4(A)- Establish rules or 

terms and conditions

• Core Principle 5 – Ability to Obtain 

Information

• Core Principle 10 – Recordkeeping

• Part 43

• Part 45
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Exhibit B – AEGIS SEF Exhibit M Rulebook

(attached under separate cover)

Exhibit C – AEGIS SEF Exhibit M Rulebook (redlined)

(attached under separate cover)