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

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Donald E. Fowler, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of SumTotal Systems, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of SumTotal Systems, Inc.



/s/ DONALD E. FOWLERDonald E. FowlerChief Executive Officer and DirectorDate: May 10, 2006


I, Neil J. Laird, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of SumTotal Systems, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of SumTotal Systems, Inc.



/s/ NEIL J. LAIRDNeil J. LairdExecutive Vice President and ChiefFinancial OfficerDate: May 10, 2006
VIA EDGAR 
 
 
 
May 1, 1997 
 
 
Securities and Exchange Commission 
450 Fifth Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20549 
 
RE:	Smith Barney Municipal Fund, Inc. 
	File Nos. 33-48166 
		   811-6688 
 
Dear Sirs: 
 
Pursuant to Rule 497(j) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, please 
accept this letter as certification that the Prospectus and the Statement of 
Additional Information for the above-referenced fund (the "Fund") does not 
differ from that contained in Post-Effective Amendment No. 2 to the Fund's 
Registration Statement on Form N-2, which was filed electronically on April 
25, 1997.   
 
Please return an electronic transmittal as evidence of your receipt of this  
filing. 
 
Very truly yours, 
 
/s/ Daria J. Szczur 
 
Daria J. Szczur 
 
Enclosures 
 
cc:	(with enclosures) 
	John E. Baumgardner, Jr., Esq.		Stephen Brunt 
	Sullivan & Cromwell			Morgan Guaranty Trust Group 
 
	Robert P. Garrett				Michael McCarthy  
	KPMg Peat Marwick LLP 		The Shareholder Services Group Inc.
Donald J. TRUMP, Petitioner v. Cyrus R. VANCE, Jr., in His Official Capacity as District Attorney of the County of New York, et al.

No. 19-635

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 13, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted. The case will be set for argument in the March 2020 argument session.
```
 
 
OMAN CRUDE OIL - DUBAI MERCANTILE EXCHANGE                           Code-067DU1
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 10/28/14                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1,000 BARRELS)                                      OPEN INTEREST:       18,411
COMMITMENTS
     458        1    2,195   15,358   15,059   18,011   17,255      400    1,156

CHANGES FROM 10/21/14 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      3,852)
      33     -690      796    4,959    2,952    5,788    3,058   -1,936      794

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
     2.5      0.0     11.9     83.4     81.8     97.8     93.7      2.2      6.3

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       26)
       2        1        3       16        8       20       11
```

----

Updated October 31, 2014
IN RE Antonio Damarcus WOODSON, Petitioner.

No. 19-7871.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 4, 2020

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for *2756a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petition in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See *Martin* v. *District of Columbia Court of Appeals* , 506 U.S. 1 (1992) (*per curiam* ).
# C_2017384EN.01000803.xml

| 14.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 384/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 384/8

---

EUROPEAN POLICE OFFICE (EUROPOL)

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2016

(2017/C 384/30)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

https://www.europol.europa.eu/about-europol/finance-budget

---
WILBUR-ELLIS COMPANY LLC, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, et al.

No. 19-463

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 35.1

AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION

ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.11(a) OF THE 

SALE AND SERVICING AGREEMENT AND

ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB

I, Paul C. Honda, do hereby certify that I am the Vice President and Assistant Secretary of American Honda Finance Corporation, a California corporation (the “Company”), and further certify on behalf of the Company in its capacity as servicer (the “Servicer” and “Sponsor”) under the Sale and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of November 29, 2017 among the Servicer and Sponsor, American Honda Receivables LLC, as Seller, and Honda Auto Receivables 2017-4 Owner Trust, as follows:

|   | (i) | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the reporting period ended March 31, 2020, and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (ii) | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period in all material respects. |
|--------|------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 29th day of May, 2020.

 

|   | /s/ Paul C. Honda                                    |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Paul C. Honda                                        |  |
|   | Vice President and Assistant Secretary               |  |
|   | (senior officer in charge of the servicing function) |  |
Younes KABBAJ, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-6761

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
IN RE Kenneth UNCAPHER, Petitioner;

No. 19-6591

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
GREENWICH STREET MUNICIPAL FUND INC.
(the "Fund")
Supplement to Prospectus dated
September 30, 1996

The Fund's Board of Directors has approved the removal of the percentage 
limitation on investing in zero coupon obligations to provide the Investment 
Manager with additional investment flexibility.

	


November 26, 1996

FD 01234
Adam STREGE, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6408

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
2007 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-11-2007

Kendrick v. DA Philadelphia

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 02-3158

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Kendrick v. DA Philadelphia" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 847.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/847
*

This case was argued before the panel of Judges Becker, Alito, and Chertoff on January 13,

2004. Judge Michael Chertoff subsequently resigned on February 15, 2005. Judge, now Justice,

Samuel A. Alito, Jr. was elevated to the United States Supreme Court on January 31, 2006. Judge

Edward R. Becker passed away on May 19, 2006. The panel was reconstituted on June 6, 2006 to

consist of Judges Sloviter, McKee and Chagares.

PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-3158

 

KEVIN KENDRICK,

 Appellant

v.

THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA;

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA;

NANCY BAILEY, SUPERINTENDENT OF FCI, FORT DIX

 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 00-cv-03561)

District Judge: Honorable William H. Yohn, Jr.

 

Originally Argued January 13, 2004

Before: BECKER, ALITO, and CHERTOFF, Circuit Judges

Resubmitted May 1, 2007

Before: SLOVITER, MCKEE, and CHAGARES, 

Circuit Judges*

 

(Filed June 7, 2007)

 

ORDER AMENDING OPINION
IT IS ORDERED that the slip opinion in the above case, filed June 7, 2007, be

amended as follows:

Page 1 of the caption, line 5 of the Appellees:

NANCY BAILEY, SUPERINTENDENT OF FBI, FORT DIX

should be deleted and replaced by: 

NANCY BAILEY, SUPERINTENDENT OF FCI, FORT DIX 

By the Court,

 /s/ Dolores K. Sloviter 

 Circuit Judge

Dated: 11 June 2007
# C_2018410EN.01000301.xml

| 13.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 410/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 410/3

---

Special Report No 30/2018

‘EU passenger rights are comprehensive but passengers still need to fight for them’

(2018/C 410/04)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 30/2018 ‘EU passenger rights are comprehensive but passengers still need to fight for them’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu

---
Elven J. SWISHER, Petitioner, v. Robert WILKIE, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

No. 19-5593

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 15, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
Charles V. SCHNEIDER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE;

No. 19-323

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for rehearing denied.
Geoffrey BAGGETT, Petitioner v. M. Eliot SPEARMAN, Warden.

No. 19-6456

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
GREENWICH STREET MUNICIPALS FUND INC.
                          10f-3 REPORT
              December 1, 1996 through May 31, 1997
                                

                                                  % of
               Trade                    Par       Purchase  Fund
% of
Issuer              Date Selling Dealer Amount         Price
Assets    Issue

Anaheim PFA         2/6/97    Paine Webber   $2,500,000
$87.60         0.95%     2.55%
5.00% due 3/1/2037
James J. THOLE, et al., Petitioners v. U.S. BANK, N.A., et al.

No. 17-1712

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as *amicus curiae* and for divided argument granted.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANYING FORM 10-Q REPORT
OF
REDDY ICE HOLDINGS, INC.
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(CHAPTER 63, TITLE 18 U.S.C. SS.SS. 1350(a) AND (b))

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350(a) and (b)),
the undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 of Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:
August 7, 2008

/s/GILBERT M. CASSAGNEGilbert M. Cassagne, Chief Executive Officer


The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350(a) and (b)), is not
a part of the
Form 10-Q to which it refers and is, to the extent permitted by law, provided by the above signatory to the extent of his knowledge.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Raymond Eugene JOHNSON, Petitioner v. Tommy SHARP, Interim Warden.

No. 19-6101

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 25, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Larry David DAVIS, Petitioner, v. Larry TEGLEY, et al.

No. 19-7391.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 26, 2020

Petition for rehearing denied.
Exhibit  31.1

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

I, Peter Smith, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Salmon Express Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

      (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

      (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

      (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

      (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

      (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: August 3, 2005

/s/ Peter Smith
-------------------------
Peter Smith
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
IN RE Keith E. DOYLE, Petitioner.

No. 19-6031

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 4, 2019

Petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.
[ARTICLE] 6
[CIK] 0000091157
[NAME] LARGE CAPITAL VALUE FUND - CLASS A
[SERIES]
   [NUMBER] 001
   [NAME] SMITH BARNEY FUNDS, INC.
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   YEAR
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          DEC-31-1999
[PERIOD-END]                               DEC-31-1999
[INVESTMENTS-AT-COST]                    1,019,638,686
[INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE]                   1,311,061,403
[RECEIVABLES]                                8,272,097
[ASSETS-OTHER]                             151,452,968
[OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS]                                 0
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                           1,470,786,468
[PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES]                             0
[SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT]                              0
[OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES]                  162,402,002
[TOTAL-LIABILITIES]                        162,402,002
[SENIOR-EQUITY]                                      0
[PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON]                 1,017,596,617
[SHARES-COMMON-STOCK]                       43,781,300
[SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR]                       44,918,361
[ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT]                     (14,608)
[OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII]                               0
[ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS]                      (620,260)
[OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS]                             0
[ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC]                   291,422,717
[NET-ASSETS]                             1,308,384,466
[DIVIDEND-INCOME]                           26,866,232
[INTEREST-INCOME]                              504,428
[OTHER-INCOME]                                       0
[EXPENSES-NET]                              12,735,714
[NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME]                     14,634,946
[REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT]                    63,929,917
[APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT]                 (96,058,919)
[NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS]                     (17,494,056)
[EQUALIZATION]                                       0
[DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME]                    8,788,518
[DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS]                    38,634,582
[DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER]                                0
[NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD]                      5,013,895
[NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED]                  8,652,752
[SHARES-REINVESTED]                          2,501,796
[NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS]                       4,969,252
[ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR]                        (8,872)
[ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR]                  (1,074,268)
[OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR]                              0
[OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR]                           0
[GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES]                        7,651,395
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                                   0
[GROSS-EXPENSE]                             12,735,714
[AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS]                       814,824,180
[PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN]                            18.28
[PER-SHARE-NII]                                   0.20
[PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC]                         (0.37)
[PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND]                              0.20
[PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS]                         0.91
[RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL]                              0.00
[PER-SHARE-NAV-END]                              17.00
[EXPENSE-RATIO]                                   0.90
</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1181

IN RE: DARRELL LYNN HENDERSON,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

(1:07-cr-00067-CG-M-1)

Submitted: March 17, 2015 Decided: March 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darrell Lynn Henderson, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Darrell Lynn Henderson petitions for a writ of mandamus 

seeking an order requiring the United States District Court for 

the Southern District of Alabama and certain prison officials to 

grant him certain credit toward his sentence. We conclude that 

Henderson is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only 

in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 

U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 

516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available 

only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. 

In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 

1988).

This court’s authority to issue mandamus relief “is only 

incidental to and in aid of appellate jurisdiction, which 

Congress has given it over district courts.” Gurley v. Superior 

Court of Mecklenburg Cnty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969) 

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Because we

lack appellate jurisdiction over the Southern District of 

Alabama, we lack jurisdiction to issue the requested writ to 

that court. We also conclude that Henderson has not met the 

burden required for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to the 

prison officials because he has not shown that he has no other 

avenue to seek relief.
3

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We also 

deny as moot Henderson’s request for an expedited decision. 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.

PETITION DENIED
FERNANDO I., Petitioner v. MARGARITA O.

No. 19-111

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Connecticut denied.
Jonothan E. PRATHER, Petitioner v. Robert GILMORE, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Greene, et al.

No. 19-6092

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
John Garrett SMITH, Petitioner, v. Ronald HAYNES.

No. 19-6577

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE SCHOOL, Petitioner v. Agnes MORRISSEY-BERRU

No. 19-267

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 18, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted. The case is consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.