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

CERTIFICATION

I, Brian F. Lavin, President of NTS
Capital Corporation, the general partner of NTS-Properties Associates V, the general partner
of NTS-Properties V, a Maryland limited partnership (the Partnership), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

|1. |  | The quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Partnership for the period ended June
               30, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
               Section 13(a) 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 Partnership.
|-- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: August 16, 2004

/s/ Brian F. Lavin

---

President of NTS Capital Corporation,
General Partner of NTS-Properties Associates V,
General Partner of NTS-Properties V, a Maryland limited partnership

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership and will be
retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
Hector MATOS, petitioner, v. NEW YORK.

No. 16-6285.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, First Judicial Department denied.
Paul Andy TURNER, petitioner, v. Warren L. MONTGOMERY, Warden.

No. 16-6310.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDWARD STEPHEN GONZALES,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

T. E. VAUGHAN,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 07-55764

D.C. No. CV-05-01664-GPS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

George P. Schiavelli, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 24, 2011** 

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Edward Stephen Gonzales appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We

dismiss. 

Gonzales contends that the Board of Prison Terms’ 2002 decision to deny

FILED

JUN 07 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-55764

him parole deprived him of due process because it was not supported by “some

evidence,” and relied on static factors and other allegedly impermissible factors. 

After briefing was completed in this case, this court held that a certificate of

appealability (“COA”) is required to challenge the denial of parole. See Hayward

v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554-55 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). Now the Supreme

Court has held that the only federal right at issue in the parole context is

procedural, and the only proper inquiry is what process the inmate received, not

whether the state court decided the case correctly. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S.

Ct. 859, 863 (2011) (per curiam). Because Gonzales raises no procedural

challenges regarding his parole hearing, a COA cannot issue, and we dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

Further, because Gonzales has not has made a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right, we decline to certify his remaining claims. Id.

We deny Gonzales’ request for additional briefing.

DISMISSED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000851726
<NAME> AZCO MINING INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      20,871,920
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  391,216
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            21,263,136
<PP&E>                                       7,084,820
<DEPRECIATION>                               (145,301)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,202,655
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           55,392
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    25,638,575
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,508,688
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,202,655
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               746,901
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,708,835
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,961,934)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (134,296)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,827,638)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,827,638)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.071)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.071)
        

</TABLE>
Robin Dwane SCHAFFER, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6201.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2




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 March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Arthur O. Whipple, Chief
Financial 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: May
7, 2008
  By: /s/ Arthur O.
Whipple


Arthur O.
Whipple
 Chief Financial
Officer
  34
# C_2011211EN.01000202.xml

| 16.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/2

---

Opinion of the Court (Full Court) of 8 March 2011 — Council of the European Union

(Opinion 1/09) (1)

1

(Opinion delivered pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU - Draft agreement - Creation of a unified patent litigation system - European and Community Patents Court - Compatibility of the draft agreement with the Treaties)

2011/C 211/03

Language of the case: all the official languages.

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Council of the European Union

Applicant:

Re:

Re:

Request for an opinion — Compatibility, with the EC Treaty, of a draft agreement creating a unified patent litigation system — European and Community Patents Court, composed of a court of first instance and a court of appeal — Attribution to that court of jurisdiction to determine, in particular, disputes relating to the validity and/or application of Community patents, linked to the power or the obligation for that court to refer to the Court of Justice questions for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the EC Treaty or the validity and interpretation of acts adopted by the European Union institutions — Adverse effect on the autonomy of the Community legal order and the primacy of Community law?

Operative part

Operative part

The envisaged agreement creating a unified patent litigation system (currently called ‘European and Community Patents Court’) is not compatible with the provisions of the EU Treaty and the FEU Treaty.

---

(1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.

1

---
secretary 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

rbennett@candrtrans.com 

Wednesday, June 10, 2009 5:37 PM 

secretary 

Public Comment Form 

Received CFTC 

Records Section 

Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by 

(rbennett@candrtrans.com) on Wednesday, June 10, 2009 at 17:36:53 

commenter_subject: Swap dealers hedge exemption 

commenter_frdate: June 16 2009 

commenter_frpage: 17 CFR Part 150 

commenter comments: Once again the big speculators and funds are 

circunventing the spec position limits to 

manipulate the oil market.These speculators and 

thier swap dealers are not oil producers nor energy 

end users and should not be exempt from from spec 

limits. 

If the CFTC allows this to happen all over again 

then the loss of my 35 employee's jobs will be on 

your hands.My business will not survive another 

2007-2008. 

JB Morgan today said they expect $50B in cash to 

be deployed into commodities this year,how can any 

one invest that much and stay within spec limits? 

commenter_name: Ronny Bennett 

commenter_firm: C & R Transportation,Inc 

commenter_address1: PO Box 54262 

commenter_address2: 2015 E 84 St 

commenter_city: Lubbock 

commenter_state: Texas 

commenter_zip: 79453 

commenter_fax: 806 748 6808 

commenter_phone: 806 748 1378 

1 

6/11~1 

COMMENT 

~ c::::t 

COP 

Ct:::: 

z 

.~ 

fA· 

-o 

:::3 

1"'0' 

..-

CiD'
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3670 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3670

    To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to ensure access to 
    appropriate temporary shelter, food, and water for individuals 
   apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 10, 2019

 Ms. Slotkin (for herself and Mr. Thompson of Mississippi) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                                Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to ensure access to 
    appropriate temporary shelter, food, and water for individuals 
   apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 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 ``Short-Term Detention Standards 
Act''.

SEC. 2. ACCESS TO APPROPRIATE TEMPORARY SHELTER, FOOD, AND WATER DURING 
              SHORT-TERM DETENTION.

    Paragraph (1) of section 411(m) of the Homeland Security Act of 
2002 (6 U.S.C. 211(m)) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(1) Access to appropriate temporary shelter, food, and 
        water.--The Commissioner shall make every effort to ensure the 
        provision to an individual apprehended by the Commissioner of 
        appropriate temporary shelter with access to bathroom and 
        shower facilities, water, appropriate nutrition, hygiene, 
        personal grooming items, and sanitation needs.''.
                                 <all>
```
Craig D. HUNTER, petitioner, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.

No. 16-6653.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Missouri denied.
Hitzel PALAFOX-DOMINGUES, petitioner, v. INDIANA.

No. 16-6325.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, Second District denied.
**Exhibit 23.1**

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

The Board of Directors

Adolor Corporation: 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-51222, No. 333-62428, No. 333-100585, and No. 333-105912) on Form S-8 and registration statements (No. 333-131765, No. 333-107998 andNo. 333-64298) on Form S-3 of Adolor Corporation of our reports dated March 2, 2006, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Adolor Corporation and subsidiary as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidatedstatements of operations, comprehensive loss, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2005, and for the period from August 9, 1993 (inception) to December 31, 2005,and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, which reports appear inthe December 31, 2005 annual report on Form 10-K of Adolor Corporation. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

March 2, 2006
Judith Anne HEAGNEY-O'HARA, petitioner, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security.

No. 16M65.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ certiorari out of time denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1


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

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fortune Diversified Industries,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period
ending February 29, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Carter M. Fortune, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

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

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

1/13/04                    /s/ Carter M. Fortune
Date                       ------------------------------------------
                           Carter M. Fortune, Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 122 (Monday, June 25, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 33673]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15857]



[[Page 33673]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-407-001]


Algonquin Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

June 19, 2001.
    Take notice that on June 14, 2001, Algonquin Gas Transmission 
Company (Algonquin) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Fourth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet, to be 
effective on June 4, 2001:

Fourth Revised Volume No. 1
Sub Original Sheet No. 718

    Algonquin states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with 
the directives of the Commission's Letter Order dated May 30, 2001, in 
Docket No. RP01-407 (May 30 Order).
    Algonquin states that, on May 4, 2001, revised tariff sheets were 
filed in this docket in order to add a new Section 47 to its General 
Terms and Conditions that provides for transportation and storage 
services using off-system capacity acquired by Algonquin on other 
pipelines and requested a waiver of the Commission's ``shipper must 
have title'' policy with respect to off-system capacity.
    Algonquin states that the May 30 Order accepted Algonquin's May 4 
tariff filing, effective June 4, 2001, subject to the condition that 
Algonquin file, within fifteen days of the May 30 Order, a revised 
tariff sheet to reflect the changes required by the May 30 Order.
    Algonquin states that copies of its filing have been mailed to all 
affected customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via 
the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 
instructions on the Commission's web site at
http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-15857 Filed 6-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
1157.

#### Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Company *v.*Goodman.

Powell, J.

It is essential to tlie maintenance of a certiorari from a justice’s court that the answer should show ‘that there has been a final judgment or verdict rendered; but this fact may properly appear either in the answer, in the form of a direct statement, or in any other way which will sufficiently verify it. Where, as a part of the answer, *632the justice sends up a certified copy of the proceedings in the court below, and a final verdict or judgment appears therein, this is a .sufficient verification of the existence of such judgment or verdict. *Landrum*v. *Moss,*1 *Ga. App.*216 (57 S. E. 965); *Brown*v. *Atlanta,*123 *Ga.*499 (51 S. E. 507). *Judgment reversed.*

Certiorari, from Berrien superior court — Judge Mitchell. March *25,*1908.

Submitted July 2,

Decided July 31, 1908.

*Buie & Knight,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. W. Powell, Watts Powell,*contra.
James Gregory ARMISTEAD, petitioner, v. Harvey CLAY, Warden.

No. 16-6564.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1729 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United Nations 

should forthwith take the procedural actions necessary to amend Article 

23 of the Charter of the United Nations to establish India as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 18, 2010 

Mr. BILIRAKIS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

the United Nations should forthwith take the procedural 

actions necessary to amend Article 23 of the Charter 

of the United Nations to establish India as a permanent 

member of the United Nations Security Council. 

Whereas the United Nations Security Council is charged with 

maintaining peace and security among the nations of the 

world; 

Whereas the United Nations Security Council currently has 

five permanent members; 

Whereas the Republic of India achieved its independence 

from the British Empire on August 15, 1947, and has 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1729 IH 

since that time maintained a democratic system of government; 

Whereas India is the largest democratic country in the world 

in which all political views are freely expressed and respected; 

Whereas India is the world’s second most populous country, 

with over one billion citizens residing within its borders; 

Whereas India is one of the largest contributors of troops to 

United Nations-mandated peacekeeping missions; and 

Whereas the people of India have demonstrated a strong commitment to promote the peaceful development of the 

South Asian region and to global peace: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that the United Nations should forthwith take 

3 the procedural actions necessary to amend Article 23 of 

4 the Charter of the United Nations to establish India as 

5 a permanent member of the United Nations Security 

6 Council. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
# C_2009129EN.01002102.xml

| 6.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/21

---

Action brought on 30 March 2009 — Lebedef and Jones v Commission

(Case F-29/09)

2009/C 129/36

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) and Trevor Jones (Ernzen, Luxembourg)) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to refuse to increase the purchasing power of salaries in Luxembourg to a level equivalent to that of the purchasing power of salaries in Brussels and, second, annulment of the applicants’ pay slips issued from 15 June 2008.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the implied decision to refuse to increase the purchasing power of salaries in Luxembourg to a level equivalent to that of the purchasing power of salaries in Brussels; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the implied decision to refuse to increase the purchasing power of salaries in Luxembourg to a level equivalent to that of the purchasing power of salaries in Brussels;

| — | Annul, secondly, the applicants’ pay slips issued for the period from 15 June 2008; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, secondly, the applicants’ pay slips issued for the period from 15 June 2008;

| — | Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---
Anthony Tyrone CAMPBELL, petitioner, v. Scott KERNAN, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

No. 16-6911.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

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