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

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

The undersigned executive officer of WVS Financial Corp. (the Registrant) hereby certifies that
the Registrants Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained therein fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



/s/ David J. BursicDavid J. BursicPresident and Chief Executive Officer


Date: May 11, 2009

Note: A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to WVS Financial Corp. and will be retained by WVS Financial Corp. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



E-3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMSCOPE HOLDING COMPANY, 

INC., et al.

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00455-JRG-RSP

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

Defendants CommScope Holding Company, Inc., Arris Solutions, Inc., Arris Technology, 

Inc., Arris Enterprises LLC, Arris International Limited, Arris Global LTD., CommScope Inc., 

Arris US Holdings, Inc. (“Defendants”), file this Notice of Appearance, and hereby notify the 

Court that Brian Craft, of the law firm Findlay Craft, P.C., 7270 Crosswater Ave., Suite B, Tyler, 

TX 75703, Telephone (903) 534-1100, Fax (903) 534-1137, E-mail: bcraft@findlaycraft.com has 

entered this action as counsel for Defendants. In connection with this notice, Mr. Craft requests 

that all future pleadings and other papers filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 be served on him at the 

above address and contact information.

Dated: January 15, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Brian Craft

Brian Craft

State Bar No. 04972020

FINDLAY CRAFT, P.C.

7270 Crosswater Ave. 

Suite B

Tyler, TX 75703

(903) 534-1100

(903) 534-1137 FAX

bcraft@findlaycraft.com

Case 2:23-cv-00455-JRG-RSP Document 20 Filed 01/15/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 114
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 15, 2024, I electronically filed the foregoing NOTICE OF 

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which 

will send notification of such filing via electronic mail to all counsel of record.

/s/ Brian Craft 

Brian Craft

Case 2:23-cv-00455-JRG-RSP Document 20 Filed 01/15/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 115
Michael Wayne NELSON, Petitioner, v. Mark S. INCH, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 19-6893

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Cody Shane SORRELS, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9563

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Chavalier Dwayne JOHNSON, Sr., Petitioner v. Lars SEVERSON, Warden, et al.

No. 19-6184

Supreme Court of the United States.

February 24, 2020

The petition for rehearing is 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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

KARL D. CHROMY,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-35219

D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00309-BR

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 24, 2011** 

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

Karl D. Chromy appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment

in an action brought by the United States against Chromy for defaulting on his

federally-insured student loan. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review de novo. Vander v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 268 F.3d 661, 663 (9th Cir.

FILED

JUN 09 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-35219

2001). We affirm. 

The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the United

States because the undisputed facts show that Chromy obtained a student loan and

then defaulted on it. See id. (summary judgment appropriate when, reviewing the

record as a whole and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving

party, there is no genuine issue of material fact); 34 C.F.R. § 682.102(e)(1)

(borrower must repay full amount of loan, late fees, collection costs and interest). 

Although Chromy may be entitled to discharge of his student loan due to his

disability, it is undisputed that he did not submit a discharge application before the

district court granted summary judgment. See 34 C.F.R. § 682.402(c)(2) (requiring

that the borrower seeking a discharge of his loan based on a disability “submit a

discharge application to the lender on a form approved by the Secretary”); see also

Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 2003) (“In reviewing a summary

judgment, we are limited to the . . . evidence available to the court at the time the

motion was made.” (citation and internal quotations marks omitted)).

Chromy’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 12.2



CERTIFICATIONS

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, David Hackett, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Diversinet Corp.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of 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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The company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 company and 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 company, 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) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company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 report based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of company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.



Dated: March 2, 2009

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



/s/ David Hackett

Name:

David Hackett
EXHIBIT 2

Case 2:23-cv-00630-JRG Document 10-2 Filed 05/08/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 130
Case 2:23-cv-00630-JRG Document 10-2 Filed 05/08/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 131
Case 2:23-cv-00630-JRG Document 10-2 Filed 05/08/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 132
Robert Mitchell JENNINGS, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 18-6848 (18A540).

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 30, 2019.

*953Application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice ALITO and by him referred to the Court denied. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2307

To designate the building of the United States Postal Service located at

5 Cedar Street in Hopkinton, Massachusetts, as the ‘‘Thomas J. Brown

Post Office Building’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 22, 1999

Mr. MCGOVERN (for himself, Mr. DELAHUNT, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts,

Mr. TIERNEY, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. MOAKLEY,

Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. OLVER, and Mr. MARKEY) introduced the following

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform

A BILL

To designate the building of the United States Postal Service

located at 5 Cedar Street in Hopkinton, Massachusetts,

as the ‘‘Thomas J. Brown Post Office Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The building of the United States

5 Postal Service located at 5 Cedar Street in Hopkinton,

6 Massachusetts, shall be known and designated as the

7 ‘‘Thomas J. Brown Post Office Building’’.
2

•HR 2307 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United

3 States to the building referred to in subsection (a) shall

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Thomas J. Brown

5 Post Office Building’’.

Æ
Jurijus KADAMOVAS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES

No. 18-7489

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 22

- 00591

- CV
In the Interest of M.G.G., a child
On Appeal from the 197th District Court of Willacy County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2021

- CV

- 0282

- A

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant s

. We further order this decision certified below for observan c e. July 20, 2023
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1062

APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM W. NISSEN, II; LORA J. NISSEN,

Defendants - Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, Senior District 

Judge. (7:14-cv-00535-NKM-RSB)

Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: December 19, 2016

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Pavlina B. Dirom, J. Frederick Watson, CASKIE & FROST, Lynchburg, 

Virginia, for Appellants. Matthew P. Pritts, Frank K. Friedman, 

C. Carter Lee, WOODS ROGERS, PLC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William W. Nissen, II, and Lora J. Nissen appeal the district 

court’s orders denying their motion to dismiss for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction and granting Appalachian Power Co.’s (APCO) 

motion for summary judgment. Because we conclude that the district 

court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, we vacate the judgment 

of the district court and remand.

Our recent decision in Pressl v. Appalachian Power Co., ___ 

F.3d ___, No. 15-2348, 2016 WL 6833339 (4th Cir. Nov. 21, 2016), 

which concerned identical law and nearly identical facts, and for 

which this appeal was placed in abeyance, governs the outcome of 

this case. In Pressl, the Pressls sought a declaratory judgment 

in state court allowing them to build a dock on their land subject 

to APCO’s flowage easement for the Smith Mountain hydroelectric 

project. Id. at *1. APCO removed the action, and the Pressls 

sought to remand, which the district court denied. Id. We held 

that the district court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2012) or 16 U.S.C. § 825p (2012) because 

interpretation of APCO’s flowage easement does not necessarily 

raise any federal question. Id. at *3-6.

Here, the Nissens, who also seek to build a dock on Smith 

Mountain Lake, make the same arguments as the Pressls regarding 

APCO’s flowage easement on their land, which appears to be nearly 

identical to the easement APCO has on the Pressls’ land. Because 
3

under Pressl, the district court did not have subject-matter 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or 16 U.S.C. § 825p, we vacate 

the judgment of the district court and remand. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

WILLOW INNOVATIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHIARO TECHNOLOGY, LTD.,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00229-JRG

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

WILLOW’S NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE 

Pursuant to the Court’s Order (Dkt. 38), Plaintiff Willow Innovations, Inc. files this notice 

confirming that it has served its Initial and Additional Disclosures on counsel for Chiaro 

Technology, Ltd. on October 19, 2023.

 

Case 2:23-cv-00229-JRG Document 44 Filed 10/20/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 2741
2

Dated: October 20, 2023 /s/ Timothy S. Durst

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP

Timothy S. Durst (TX #00786924)

tdurst@omm.com

Cason Garrett Cole (TX #24109741)

ccole@omm.com

2501 North Harwood Street, Suite 1700

Dallas, TX 75201

Telephone: (972) 360-1900

Facsimile: (972) 360-1901

Robert F. Shaffer (admitted pro hac vice)

rshaffer@omm.com

Jason Fountain (admitted pro hac vice)

jfountain@omm.com

Miao Liu (admitted pro hac vice)

mliu@omm.com

1625 Eye St., NW

Washington, DC 20006

Telephone: (202) 383-5300

Facsimile: (202) 383-5414

Carolyn S. Wall (admitted pro hac vice)

cwall@omm.com

Times Square Tower

7 Times Square

New York, New York 10036

Telephone: (212) 326-2000

Facsimile: (212) 326-2061

Laura Burson (TX # 24091995) 

lburson@omm.com

400 South Hope St

Los Angeles, CA 90071

Telephone: (213) 430-6000

Facsimile: (213) 430-6407

Attorneys for Plaintiff

WILLOW INNOVATIONS, INC.

Case 2:23-cv-00229-JRG Document 44 Filed 10/20/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 2742
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel of record who are deemed to have consented 

to electronic services are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF 

system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on October 20, 2023. 

/s/ Timothy S. Durst

Timothy S. Durst

Case 2:23-cv-00229-JRG Document 44 Filed 10/20/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 2743
Robert Ira PEEDE, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 18-6378.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 22, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
Arek FRESSADI, petitioner, v. ARIZONA MUNICIPAL RISK RETENTION POOL, et al.

No. 18-8351.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 15, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

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 24, 2016

a0516 

# Order

Clerk May 24, 2016

151898

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 151898

COA: 326565

Genesee CC: 82

- 031720

- FC

KENNETH WOODYARD,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 22, 2015 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                         DEC-31-1998  
<PERIOD-END>                                              MAR-31-1998  
<CASH>                                                    239,904,207  
<SECURITIES>                                               32,556,969  
<RECEIVABLES>                                              20,892,594  
<ALLOWANCES>                                               (3,324,252) 
<INVENTORY>                                                   787,809  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          302,893,155  
<PP&E>                                                    472,289,309  
<DEPRECIATION>                                             31,629,670  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            948,120,621  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      68,930,133  
<BONDS>                                                   653,416,740  
<COMMON>                                                  239,612,012  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      54,632,707  
<PREFERRED>                                                         0  
<OTHER-SE>                                               (209,474,043)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              948,120,621  
<SALES>                                                    30,044,470  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           30,044,470  
<CGS>                                                      21,817,847  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              54,851,595  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          (65,571,513) 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                    0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         21,275,448  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            19,488,939  
<INCOME-TAX>                                                        0  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        19,488,939  
<DISCONTINUED>                                                      0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                     0  
<CHANGES>                                                           0  
<NET-INCOME>                                               19,488,939  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                     .56  
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                     .46  
        

</TABLE>
Cory Dale FIELDS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6502.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 9, 2020.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Donald J. TRUMP, President of the United States, et al., applicants, v. Ryan KARNOSKI, et al.

No. 18A625.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 22, 2019.

Application for stay presented to Justice KAGAN and by her referred to the Court granted, and the District Court's December 11, 2017 order granting a preliminary injunction is stayed pending disposition of the Government's appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of the Government's petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is sought. If a writ of certiorari is sought and the Court denies the petition, this order shall terminate automatically. If the Court grants the petition for a writ of certiorari, this order shall terminate when the Court enters its judgment.

Justice GINSBURG, Justice BREYER, Justice SOTOMAYOR, and Justice KAGAN would deny the application.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7367

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ALBERT M. MCDOWELL, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CR-97-45-A, CA-01-156-7)

Submitted: November 8, 2001 Decided: November 19, 2001

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Albert M. McDowell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Rick A. Mountcastle,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Albert M. McDowell, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. United States v. McDowell, Nos. CR-97-45-A;

CA-01-156-7 (W.D. Va. June 25, 2001). 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
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, 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.

 February 19, 2016

d0216

Order 

Clerk

February 19, 2016

152788(53)

SC: 152788

In re PRICE, Minors. COA: 327001

Macomb CC Family Division:

2013-000413-NA;

2013-000414-NA

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s January 8, 

2016 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.