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 Annual Report of American Church Mortgage Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies 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 operation of the Company.











Dated:
March 31, 2011
By:
/s/ Philip J. Myers


Chief Executive Officer
Charles D. SEPTOWSKI, petitioner, v. COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE OF THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS.

No. 16-5947.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Texas denied.
Timothy Lamar WALLACE, petitioner, v. Larry CARTLEDGE, Warden.

No. 16-5710.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
# UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, DC 20549

# FORM 8-K

CURRENT REPORT PURSUANT
TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Date of Report (Date
of earliest event reported): August 17, 2004

NTS-PROPERTIES V,
A MARYLAND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

|Maryland                  | 0-13400          | 61-1051452    
|------------------------- | ---------------- | --------------
|(State or jurisdiction of | (Commission File | (IRS Employer 
|Incorporation)            | Number)          | Incorporation)

10172 Linn Station Road,Louisville, Kentucky 40223
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)

(502) 426-4800
(Registrants Telephone Number, Including Area Code)

(Former
Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)

---

# ITEM 9. Regulation FD
Disclosure.

On
August 17, 2004, NTS-Properties Associates V, the general partner of NTS-Properties V, a Maryland limited partnership,
sent a notice to limited partners regarding a mini-tender offer by CMG Partners, LLC. A
copy of the notice is attached to this current report on Form 8-K as Exhibit 99.1.

# SIGNATURES

Pursuant
to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused
this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

|NTS-PROPERTIES V,
A MARYLAND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
|------------------------------------------------
|
|                                                
|By:                                             
|                                                
|                                                
|                                                
|                                                
|                                                
|                                                
|                                                

|/s/ Gregory A. Wells      
|--------------------------
|                          
|Gregory A. Wells          
|Senior Vice President and 
|Chief Financial Officer of
|NTS Capital Corporation   
|                          
|                          
|Date: August 17, 2004
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 14, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128342 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 128342 

 COA: 251405 

Wayne CC: 03-006741-01 

MICHAEL BAILEY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 8, 2005 

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

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

l1010 

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. 

October 14, 2005 

Clerk
Valerya McGRIFF, petitioner, v. STATE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, et al.

No. 16-6257.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until December 19, 2016, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
Walter TUVELL, petitioner, v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES, INC.

No. 16-343.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 7, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
David J. WIDI, Jr., petitioner, v. Thomas DOLBIER, et al.

No. 16-5032.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Ted Russell Schwartz MURRAY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-9755.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 14

- 12993

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 4:13

- cr - 10029

- JEM

- 2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus ARIEL ARIAS, a.k.a. Pichinga a.k.a. Pajia a.k.a. Pinguilla ANTONIO COMIN, a.k.a. Tony, DANIEL ROCHELA, JOSE VALDES DIAZ, a.k.a. Pepito,
Defendant s - Appellant s .

________________________ Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ (February 4, 2016) Case: 14-12993 Date Filed: 02/04/2016 Page: 1 of 32 Before WILSON, JULIE CARNES, and EBEL , ∗ Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: In this consolidated appeal, a ppellants Ariel Arias, Antonio Comin, Daniel Rochela, and Jose Valdes Diaz separately challenge their various convictions and sentences arising from a 2012 scheme to smuggle aliens into the United States from Cuba. The a ppellants raise a variety of argume nts, most of which overlap. After review of the parties’ briefs and the relevant law, and having had the benefit of oral argument, we hold that the district court committed no reversible error. Therefore, we affirm. Arias, Comin, Diaz, and Rochela all assert that their convictions should be vacated due to insufficient evidence and because the district court erroneously admitted various pieces of evidence. These arguments fail. First, based on the evidence presented at trial, “a reasonab le jury co uld have found [each a ppellant] guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” See United States v. Reeves , 742 F.3d 487, 497 (11th Cir. 2014)

. Accordingly , the evidence was sufficient to support the

a ppellants’ convictions. See id. Second , the a ppellants’ evidentiary challenges are unavailing because, even assuming the district court erred in admitting the evidence at issue , such error was harmless. See United States v. Jimi nez , 224 F.3d 1243, 1250 (11th Cir. 2000).

∗ Honorable David M. Ebel , United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals , sitting by designation.

Case: 14-12993 Date Filed: 02/04/2016 Page: 2 of 33 Rochela and Diaz also argue that their conspiracy convictions must be vacated because the conspiracy

- related evidence presented at trial materially varied from the allegations in their indictments. However, relief for a material variance requires proof of substa ntial prejudice, s ee United States v. Calderon , 127 F.3d 1314, 1327 (11th Cir. 1 997) , which Rochela and Diaz have not demonstrated. Finally, Rochela and Comin assert that their respective sentences are unreasonable , but we conclude that the district court did not abuse its d iscretion in sentencing either a ppellant. See United States v. Irey , 612 F.3d 1160, 1188

– 89 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (holding that appellate courts review challenges to the
reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion). AFFIRMED. Case: 14-12993 Date Filed: 02/04/2016 Page: 3 of 3
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1799/2004

of 15 October 2004         

fixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 October 2004         

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1249/96 of 28 June 1996 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 as regards import duties in the cereals sector (2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The import duties in the cereals sector referred to in Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information given in Annex II.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 16 October 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 15 October 2004.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ            

Agriculture Director-General

----

(1)OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78.

(2)OJ L 161, 29.6.1996, p. 125. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1110/2003 (OJ L 158, 27.6.2003, p. 12).

----

ANNEX I

Import duties for the products covered by Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 applicable from 15 October 2004

----

(1)  For goods arriving in the Community via the Atlantic Ocean or via the Suez Canal (Article 2(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1249/96), the importer may benefit from a reduction in the duty of:

(2)  The importer may benefit from a flat-rate reduction of EUR 24/t, where the conditions laid down in Article 2(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1249/96 are met.

----

ANNEX II

Factors for calculating duties

period from 1.10.2004-14.10.2004         

1.   
Averages over the reference period referred to in Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1249/96:

2.   
Averages over the reference period referred to in Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1249/96:
Freight/cost: Gulf of Mexico–Rotterdam: 28,13 EUR/t; Great Lakes–Rotterdam: 35,86 EUR/t.

3.   

----

(*1)  A discount of 10 EUR/t (Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1249/96).

(*2)  A discount of 30 EUR/t (Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1249/96).

(*3)  Premium of 14 EUR/t incorporated (Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1249/96).

(*4)  Fob Duluth.

----
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

In the Matter of: 

RICHARD J. PRATT 

CFTC Docket No. 78-42 

ORDER PURSUANT TO 

DELEGATED AUTHORITY 

On August 23,2013, petitioner Richard J. Pratt ("Pratt") filed with the Commission a 

Motion to Restore Trading Privileges. Pratt withdrew that motion via email communication with 

Commission staff on November 8 and November 14, 2013. 

Accordingly, Pratt's Motion to Restore Trading Privileges is hereby dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 

Dated: November 20, 20 13 

Robert A. Schwartz 

Deputy General Counsel 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

1 By the Commission pursuant to delegated authority. 17 C.F.R. § 10.109(5).
259 F.2d 268

#### Morris ALBERT, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 15896.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

July 14, 1958.

Rehearing Denied July *30,*1958.

*649Morris Albert, appellant, in pro. per.

George M. Yeager, U. S. Atty., Jay A. Rabinowitz, Asst. U. S. Atty., Fairbanks, Alaska, for appellee.

Before FEE, CHAMBERS and BARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted by a jury in the District Court for the District of Alaska, Fourth Judicial Division, for the offense of armed robbery (A.C. L.A. 1949, § 65-4 — 24). On May 21, 1956 a fifteen (15) year sentence was imposed. An appeal from this conviction, filed May 26, 1956, was never perfected. On February 18, 1957 appellant filed a “Petition of Motion to Vacate Sentence” which the district court properly treated as a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. This motion was denied by the district judge on May 28, 1957 after careful consideration and examination of the files and records of the case. Appellant filed on November 5, 1957 a second “Petition to Vacate Sentence.” This petition, improperly filed in the Third Judicial Division, was transferred to the Fourth Division, the sentencing court, and filed therein November 22, 1957. The petition was denied November 27, 1957 upon the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which provides :

> *650“ * * * The sentencing court shall not be required to entertain a second or successive motions for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner.”

This appeal is from the denial of the second petition for relief under section 2255 (28 U.S.C. § 1291).

Careful consideration of the allegations of error contained in the first and second petitions convinces us that the district judge was correct in his exercise of the discretion granted him by the above quoted provision. The two petitions are, in all material aspects, substantially alike.

Appellant contends that he was entitled to a hearing on the second petition. He is so entitled “unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.” The latter is the case here.

The decision of the district court is affirmed.
Exhibit
      23.1





**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**








We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Post-Effective Amendment No.
      1
      to Form S-8 Registration Statement (No 333-129499), of Conversion Services
      International Inc. of our report, dated March
      29,
      2007, except for note
      25
      as to which the date is September 5, 2007relating to the consolidated
      financial statements which appear in this Form 10-K/A.








/s/
      Friedman LLP





East
      Hanover, New Jersey


September
      5, 2007
Kim FLORENCE, petitioner, v. VIKING ASSOCIATES.

No. 16-5783.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

 Office of Public Affairs 

 Three Lafayette Centre 

 1155 21st Street, NW 

 Washington, DC 20581 

 www.cftc.gov

Q & A – Reporting, Recordkeeping, Public Information 

and Information Sharing Requirements for DCOs 

What core principles are covered by this rulemaking? 

Core Principle J (Reporting), K (Recordkeeping), L (Public Information) and M (Information-Sharing) are covered 

by this rulemaking. This rulemaking codifies the language of each core principle and, as appropriate, includes 

additional implementing provisions. 

What types of reporting requirements are being proposed? 

There are two categories of reporting requirements being proposed: periodic and event-specific, and a general 

category for all other information as necessary. Periodic reporting has three subcategories: (i) daily reporting which 

requires certain margin, clearing and settlement information, (ii) quarterly reporting, which restates the quarterly 

reporting requirements previously proposed in conjunction with the DCO Financial Resources rulemaking, and (iii) 

annual reporting which requires the filing of an annual compliance report and audited year-end financial statements. 

The Commission is also proposing certain event-specific reporting requirements which will assist the Commission 

in its oversight of DCOs. Additionally, the regulations will continue to require a DCO to submit information upon 

request by the Commission. 

How do these requirements differ from what is currently required? 

Currently, the Commission can request that a DCO provide information related to its business as a clearing 

organization. Additionally, certain DCOs provide data to the Commission on a regular basis, while others do not. 

This rulemaking is proposing uniform requirements for all DCOs. 

Are there additional requirements for systemically important DCOs (SIDCOs) in this rulemaking? 

The Commission is not proposing to adopt additional or enhanced requirements for SIDCOs in connection with 

this rulemaking. This is based on the Commission’s view that rigorous information management requirements 

should apply equally to all DCOs, regardless of their size or systemic importance. 

What types of requirements are being proposed for Core Principles K, L and M? 

The Commission is proposing to codify the requirements of Core Principle K (recordkeeping) and expand upon the 

statutory language to clarify and highlight certain requirements. 

The Commission believes that the statutory language of Core Principles L (Public Information) and M 

(Information-Sharing) are sufficiently clear. Thus, the Commission is proposing to codify the statutory language 

primarily in the same form, without further requirements. 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission ♦ Office of Public Affairs ♦ 202-418-5080
Exhibit 32.1





Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350


(Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC





In connection with the Annual Report of Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Matthew K. Rose, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Julie A. Piggott, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to his/her knowledge on the date hereof:





|   |                                                                                                                      
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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: February 27, 2015





/s/    Matthew K. Rose/s/    Julie A. PiggottMatthew K. RoseChairman andChief Executive OfficerJulie A. PiggottExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC and will be retained by Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 620.

#### Mulloney *v.*United States.

January 6, 1936.

*Mr. Romney Spring*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Reed, Assistant Attorney General Keenan,*and *Mr. W. Marvin Smith*for the United States.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
Brent T. STARR, petitioner, v. Mike OBENLAND.

No. 16-6852.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

     I, Karl R. Wyss, as Chief Executive Officer of Thermadyne Holdings
Corporation (the "Company") certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

     (1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the period ending September 30,
2003 as filed with the U.S. 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, as amended; 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: November 14, 2003

                                               By: /s/ Karl R. Wyss
                                                   -----------------------------

                                                   Karl R. Wyss
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                                   (Principal Executive Officer)
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

# AGENCY:

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation.

# ACTION:

Notice; correction. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         of June 6, 2001, concerning notice of public meeting and request for comments to address the development of a booster seat education plan. The document was incorrectly published as a Proposed Rule. It should have been published as a Notice because it will not lead to Rulemaking. The document also contained incorrect dates.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tami Levitas, NHTSA, 202-366-0652.

## Correction

                        1. In the                         **Federal Register**                         of June 6, 2001, in (66 FR 30366) (Docket NHTSA-01-9785), on page 30367, in the first column, second paragraph, correct the “Dates” caption to read:                    

# DATES:

* * * Written Comments: Written requests to speak at the public meeting and/or suggestions for items to be included in the meeting agenda, should be received at Docket Management at the below address no later than July 3, 2001. Comments to be submitted for the public record should be received at Docket Management at the below address no later than July 13, 2001.

                        2. In the                         **Federal Register**                         of June 6, 2001, in (66 FR 30366) (Docket NHTSA-01-9785), on page 30367, correct the third column, paragraph after question 12, first sentence, of the “Supplementary Information” caption to read:                    

If you wish to make a presentation at the meeting, please contact Tami Levitas at the above mailing address or telephone number by July 3, 2001.

      ( print page 33298)    
Dated: June 15, 2001.

Rose A. McMurray,

Associate Administrator for Traffic Safety Programs.

[FR Doc. 01-15603  Filed 6-20-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-M