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 PLX Technology, Inc. (the "Company")
        on
        Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Michael J. Salameh,
        Chief
        Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely
        for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,
        that to the best of my knowledge:
  1.
              the
                  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
                  15(d), as
                  applicable, 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
                  at the dates and for the periods indicated.
  This
        Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission.
  Date: November
        2 ,
        2007
  By: /s/
        Michael J. Salameh
 Michael
        J.
        Salameh
 Chief
        Executive Officer
Aaron M. BELCHER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-9461.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MARCH 31,
1999 MASCOTECH, INC. 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          20,040
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  273,990
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    195,900
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               536,880
<PP&E>                                         987,690
<DEPRECIATION>                                 318,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,126,790
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          275,430
<BONDS>                                      1,404,360
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,030
<OTHER-SE>                                     201,860
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,126,790
<SALES>                                        448,660
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               448,660
<CGS>                                          332,640
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  332,640
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,010
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,220
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 46,740
<INCOME-TAX>                                    22,880
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             23,860
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,860
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .47
        

</TABLE>
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended September 30, 2010 (the “Report”) of Teche Holding Company (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, we, Patrick O. Little, President and Chief Executive Officer, and J. L. Chauvin, Senior Vice President and Treasurer, 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) 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/ Patrick O. Little


/s/ J.L. ChauvinPatrick O. Little

President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)


J.L. Chauvin

Senior Vice President and Treasurer

Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)





January 5, 2011
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 19, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15368]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Illinois Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of 
the Illinois Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 1:00 
p.m. and adjourn at 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 28, 2001, at 55 West 
Monroe Street, Suite 525, Chicago, Illinois 60603. The purpose of the 
meeting is to discuss civil rights issues and plan future activities.
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact Constance M. Davis, Director of the 
Midwestern Regional Office, 312-353-8311 (TDD 312-353-8362). Hearing-
impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services 
of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at 
least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, June 11, 2001.
Edward A. Hailes, Jr.,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 01-15368 Filed 6-18-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.2



CYBERSOURCE CORPORATION



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 Annual Report of CyberSource Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the Report), I, Steven D. Pellizzer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.



This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.



|                     |  |  |  |                           
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------
|                     |  | 
|Date: March 11, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/    STEVEN D. PELLIZZER
|                     |  |  |  |                           
|                     |  |  |  | Steven D. Pellizzer       
|                     |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 15

- 00112

- CR

DAVID GRANDE v. THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from the 319th District Court of Nueces County , Texas Trial Cause No. 14

- CR

- 2987

- G

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause o n appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. July 14, 2016
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6567

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TYRONE LEE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-89-53-R)

Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 7, 1997

Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tyrone Lee, Appellant Pro Se. N. George Metcalf, Assistant United

States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Lee, No. CR-89-53-R (E.D. Va. Mar. 27,

1997). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. ___, 1997 WL 338568 (U.S. June

23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
Christopher Ray KINSEY, applicant, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16A38.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

The application for a certificate of appealability addressed to Justice SOTOMAYOR and referred to the Court denied.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: DARRELL M. HILLS 

DOCKET NUMBER: 140 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT -- CEA DOCKET NO. 140 

(Administrative Hearing under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing has been signed by the Assistant Secretary 

of Agriculture, charging violation of the Commodity Exchange Act by: 

Darrell M. Hills 

(Topeka, Kansas) 

The complaint charges that the respondent exceeded the speculative trading 

and position limits on soybean futures during the period June 1, 1965, through 

September 21, 1965. The complaint also charges that the respondent knowingly 

failed to submit reports and submitted false reports in connection with such 

trading. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when the Judicial Officer of the Department has made a determination that the 

evidence substantiates allegations in the complaint. Complaints are filed in 

the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and are a 

matter of public record. Pending disposition by the Judicial Officer, it is the 

policy of the Commodity Exchange Authority not to comment or elaborate on 

charges contained in complaints or to discuss evidence on which they are based. 

A public hearing on the complaint is scheduled to be held before a referee at 

10:00 a.m., local time, November 3, 1966, in Topeka, Kansas. 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2
#### In the Matter of Anthony R, a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[881 NYS2d 893]

In a juvenile *602delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Hunt, J.), dated October 21, 2008, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated September 8, 2008, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent, and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated September 8, 2008.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Viewing the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing in the light most favorable to the presentment agency *(see Matter of David H.,*69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]; *Matter of Melissa N,*62 AD3d 884 [2009]; *Matter of Ashanti B.,*62 AD3d 790 [2009]; *Matter of Latiyanna M.,*62 AD3d 710 [2009]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree *(see*Penal Law § 160.10 [1]; § 155.30 [5]; § 165.40).

In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence *(see Matter of Hasan C.,*59 AD3d 617 [2009]; *Matter of Victor L,*57 AD3d 779 [2008]; *cf.*CPL 470.15 [5]; *People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor *(see Matter of Daniel R.,*51 AD3d 933, 934 [2008]; *cf People v Mateo, 2*NY3d 383 [2004], *cert denied*542 US 946, 410 [2004]; *People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the Family Court’s fact-finding determination was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*Family Ct Act § 342.2 [2]; *cf People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Rivera, J.P, Dillon, Balkin and Austin, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
 

<CIK>     0000744822


<NAME>      Fidelity Investment Trust


<SERIES>

        <NUMBER>        201


        <NAME>      Fidelity Hong Kong and China  Fund


<MULTIPLIER>    1,000


       

<S>

<C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>

year


<FISCAL-YEAR-END>

oct-31-1997


<PERIOD-END>

oct-31-1997


<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>

212,850


<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>

178,780


<RECEIVABLES>

8,412


<ASSETS-OTHER>

29


<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>

0


<TOTAL-ASSETS>

187,221


<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>

5,060


<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>

0


<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>

4,745


<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>

9,805


<SENIOR-EQUITY>

0


<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>

206,309


<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>

16,040


<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>

8,471


<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>

2,039


<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>

0


<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>

3,137


<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>

0


<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>

(34,069)


<NET-ASSETS>

177,416


<DIVIDEND-INCOME>

4,897


<INTEREST-INCOME>

503


<OTHER-INCOME>

0


<EXPENSES-NET>

2,843


<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>

2,557


<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>

3,356


<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>

(45,266)


<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>

(39,353)


<EQUALIZATION>

0


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>

1,742


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>

995


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>

0


<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>

26,276


<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>

18,904


<SHARES-REINVESTED>

198


<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>

67,536


<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>

1,472


<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>

976


<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>

0


<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>

0


<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>

1,625


<INTEREST-EXPENSE>

0


<GROSS-EXPENSE>

2,843


<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>

217,498


<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>

12.970


<PER-SHARE-NII>

 .170


<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>

(1.950)


<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>

 .140


<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>

 .080


<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>

0


<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>

11.060


<EXPENSE-RATIO>

131


<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>

0


<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>

0



        



</TABLE>
#### Dion Orlando TAYLOR, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN OF ALLENDALE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 12-6066.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 29, 2012.

Decided: April 3, 2012.

Dion Orlando Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Dion Orlando Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Taylor has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

January 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 129620 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 129620 

 COA: 264144 

Jackson CC: 04-001406-FH 

MICHAEL JABARIE BOYD,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 7, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0120 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

January 27, 2006 

Clerk
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

OF FLORIDA 

SECOND DISTRICT 

ANTHONY WILLIAMS, ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D14-2125 

 ) 

STATE OF FLORIDA, ) 

 ) 

 Appellee. )

___________________________________) 

Opinion filed November 14, 2014. 

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Hendry County; Donald H. Mason, 

Judge. 

SILBERMAN, Judge. 

 Anthony Williams appeals the order summarily denying his motion to 

correct jail credit filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801. We reverse. 

 Williams was arrested on May 27, 2011, and later charged with criminal 

mischief, burglary of a structure, possession of burglary tools, and grand theft. On June 

1, 2011, he bonded out of jail. After Williams failed to appear, a warrant for his arrest 

was issued, and it was served on March 15, 2013. Williams pleaded to the offenses 

and was sentenced on July 12, 2013. He was awarded 125 days of jail credit, 5 days 
 -2-

for the time he spent in jail after his original arrest and 120 days for the time he spent in 

jail after he was arrested for failing to appear. 

 In his motion to correct jail credit, Williams argued that under these facts 

he was entitled to one more day of jail credit for a total of 126 days. The State asserted 

that Williams was entitled to only four days' credit for the time he spent in jail from May 

27, 2011, to June 1, 2011, and that he should have been awarded a total of 124 days' 

credit. The postconviction court concurred with the State's calculations and denied 

Williams' motion. But May 27 to June 1 is 6 days. See Bronk v. State, 25 So. 3d 701, 

703 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (noting that the statutory entitlement to jail credit starts with the 

initial arrest and continues until the actual release from custody). Thus, Williams is 

entitled to one more day of jail credit. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the 

postconviction court to award Williams one more day of jail credit for a total of 126 days. 

 Reversed and remanded with directions. 

MORRIS and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 28, 2015

d0518

Order 

Clerk

May 28, 2015

149433(51)

PHIL FORNER,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v SC: 149433

COA: 307626

Public Service Commission:

00-016273

CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY,

Respondent-Appellee,

and

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,

Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s November 

25, 2014 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order 

was entered erroneously.