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 2004





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Green Energy Holding Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report'), I, Dennis C. Murphy, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2004, that to the best of my knowledge and
belief:





(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.








/s/ Dennis C.
Murphy


Dennis C. Murphy, Chief Executive Officer





Dated:
May 13, 2008
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1013 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1013

    To make 1 percent across-the-board rescissions in discretionary 
    spending for each of fiscal years 2013 and 2014, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 6, 2013

  Mr. Messer (for himself and Mr. Mulvaney) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To make 1 percent across-the-board rescissions in discretionary 
    spending for each of fiscal years 2013 and 2014, 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 ``Discretionary Spending Reduction 
Act''.

SEC. 2. ACROSS-THE-BOARD RESCISSIONS IN DISCRETIONARY SPENDING FOR EACH 
              OF FISCAL YEARS 2013 AND 2014.

    (a) Across-the-Board Rescissions.--There is rescinded an amount 
equal to 1 percent of--
            (1) the budget authority provided (or obligation limitation 
        imposed) in each of fiscal years 2013 and 2014 for 
        discretionary accounts in any fiscal year 2013 or 2014 
        appropriation Act;
            (2) the budget authority provided in any advance 
        appropriation for each of fiscal years 2013 and 2014 for 
        discretionary accounts in any prior fiscal year appropriation 
        Act; and
            (3) the contract authority provided in each of fiscal years 
        2013 and 2014 for any program that is subject to a limitation 
        contained in any fiscal year 2013 or 2014 appropriation Act for 
        discretionary accounts.
    (b) Application.--The Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget may apply the rescissions required under subsection (a) to any 
discretionary account in the applicable appropriation Acts in order to 
achieve the required reductions.
    (c) Subsequent Appropriation Laws.--In the case of any fiscal year 
2013 or 2014 appropriation Act enacted after the date of enactment of 
this section, any rescission required by subsection (a) shall take 
effect immediately after the enactment of such Act.
    (d) OMB Report.--Within 30 days after the date of enactment of this 
section (or, if later, 30 days after the date of enactment of any 
fiscal year 2013 or 2014 appropriation Act), the Director of the Office 
of Management and Budget shall submit to the Committees on 
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate a report 
specifying the account and amount of each rescission made pursuant to 
subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CertificatePursuant to Rule 15d-14 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934**

I, Anthony J.Nocchiero, certify that:

1. I have reviewedthis quarterly report of Merisant Company;

2. Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

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

# 4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

# (a)                                  Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

# (b)                                 Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

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

# 5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

# (a)                                  Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

# (b)                                 Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

Date:  November 13, 2006
|        | /s/ Anthony J. Nocchiero       |
|--------|--------------------------------|
|   | Name: Anthony J. Nocchiero     |
|   | Title: Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 116 (Thursday, June 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 36347]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12945]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: June 16, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
June 10, 2022, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 747 to Competitive Product List. 
Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2022-67, CP2022-
73.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2022-12945 Filed 6-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1231 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1231

    To provide that the President shall submit to Congress a report 
detailing the priority of Federal spending if the statutory debt limit 
                  is reached, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 15, 2013

Mr. Schweikert introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To provide that the President shall submit to Congress a report 
detailing the priority of Federal spending if the statutory debt limit 
                  is reached, 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 ``Transparency on Prioritizing 
Spending Act''.

SEC. 2. PRIORITY OF SPENDING IF THE DEBT CEILING IS REACHED.

    Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
President shall submit to Congress a report listing, in descending 
order of prioritization, which obligations of the United States 
Government will be paid in the event that the debt of the United States 
Government, as defined in section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, 
reaches the statutory limit.
                                 <all>
```
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-20800 Summary Calendar

FELICIA N. JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. GREENWAY MERCEDES; MERCEDES BENZ OF HOUSTON GREENWAY, Defendants-Appellees

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12-CV-2367

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Felicia N. J ones appeals the district court’s dismissal of her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. “ The district c ourt must d i smiss [an] action if i t finds t hat i t lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” Randall D. W olcott, M.D., P.A. v. Sebelius , 635 F.3d 7 57, 762 (5th Cir. 2 0 1 1 ) ( c iting F E D
. R

. C I V
. P. 12(h)(3)). A district c ourt’s dismissal f or lack of s ubject matter jurisdicti o n is reviewed de novo. Id. U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D J uly 1, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-20800 Document: 00512293168 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/01/2013No. 12-20800

Although this court l iberally construes pro se briefs, “even p ro s e l itigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them.” Mapes v. Bishop , 541 F.3d 582, 584 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993) and F E D
. R. A P P
. P. 28(a)(9)). Jones h as failed to make a c o h e rent argument challenging the d istrict court’s determination that i t la c ked subject matter jurisdiction over the action. When an appellant fails to identify any error in t he district court’s a nalysis, it i s the s ame as if the a ppellant had not a ppealed that issue. Brinkmann v. D allas County Deputy Sheriff A bner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 198 7 )

. Jones has abandoned any challenge t o the district court’s dismissal of her complaint f or lack of subject matter j urisdiction. See id. Because Jones’s appeal p resents n o legal points arguable on their merits, the appeal IS DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See Howard v . King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 T H C I R
. R. 4 2.2. We recently issued Jones a sanction warning in Jones v. Vouitton, No. 12- 20562, slip op. at 2 (5th Cir. May 28, 2013). Jones filed her notice of appeal and her brief in the instant case before we issued that warning. W e repeat our WARNING that a ny future frivolous pleadings f iled by her in t h is court or in any court subject to the j urisdiction of this court will subject her to sanctions. Jones should review any pending matters to ensure that they are not frivolous.

2 Case: 12-20800 Document: 00512293168 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/01/2013
##### 



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 CEA Acquisition Corporation
(the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 (the
Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, I Brad Gordon, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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, as amended; and 2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company. By:  /s/ Brad Gordon
    
    Dated: November 9, 2004Brad GordonChief Financial Officer(Principal Accounting Officer)
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-63,980-11

EX PARTE RAUL VILLEGAS GARZA, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. W9232-8 IN THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM HOOD COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of indecency with

a child by contact and sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment.

In his present application, Applicant raises three grounds. This application, however,

presents a more serious question. This Court’s records reflect that Applicant has filed seven prior

applications pertaining to this conviction. It is obvious from the record that Applicant continues to

raise issues that have been presented and rejected in previous applications or that should have been
2

presented in previous applications. The writ of habeas corpus is not to be lightly or easily abused. 

Sanders v. U.S., 373 U.S. 1 (1963); Ex parte Carr, 511 S.W.2d 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). 

Because of his repetitive claims, we hold that Applicant’s claims are barred from review under

Article 11.07, § 4, and are waived and abandoned by his abuse of the writ. This application is

dismissed.

Therefore, we instruct the Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals not to accept or file the

instant application for a writ of habeas corpus, or any future application pertaining to this conviction

unless Applicant is able to show in such an application that any claims presented have not been

raised previously and that they could not have been presented in a previous application for a writ of

habeas corpus. Ex parte Bilton, 602 S.W.2d 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980).

Copies of this order shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Filed: April 10, 2019

Do not publish
Nawaz AHMED, Petitioner, v. Tim SHOOP, Warden.

No. 18-9331

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
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, 2008 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. Fowler Chief Executive Officer and Director Date: May 7, 2008


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, 2008 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. Laird Chief Financial Officer Date: May 7, 2008
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Physicians Formula Holdings, Inc.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Ingrid
Jackel, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:




(1)
      The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) 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.




The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350
and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.




Date: November
3, 2008




By:
              /s/
      Ingrid JackelName:
              Ingrid
      JackelTitle:
              Chief
      Executive Officer





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 Physicians Formula
Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Physicians Formula
Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2).

T he H onor abl e W i l l i a m H . S t a f f or d, J r . , S e ni orD i s tr i c tJ udge f orthe ** U . S . D i s tr i c tC ourtf

orN orthe rn F l or i da , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. GA R Y C OL OMB O, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 10585 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 7 - c r - 0 0 0 8 0 - C R WP A L -3 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da C ha r l e s R . W ol l e , S e ni orD i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r9, 2011 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: T R O T T and B E A , C i rc ui tJudg es , and S T A F F O R D , S eni or D i stri ct Judg e. *** 

# FI LED DE C 20 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

G a ry C o lo m b o p le a d e d g u iltyto p a rtic ip a tin g in am a s s iv e w ir e f r au d in e x c h a n g e f

o rc o n s id e r ab le f

a v o r ab le c o n c e s s io n s b yth e g o v e rn m e n t. No twi th s t a n d i n g h i s p l e aa g r e e m e n t ’ s wa i v e ro f ap p e a l c l au s e , h e ap p e a l s o n two r e la te d g r o u n d s , n e ith e ro f w h ic h w e c o n c lu d e is v a lid . 1) C ol om bo a tt a c ks the va l i di tyof hi s pl e ai nc l udi ng hi s appe a l w a i ve ron th e g r o u n d th a t th e a g r e e m e n t la c k e d av a lidf a c tu a l b a s is . W e d is a g r e e . I n h is s i gne d a nd c ouns e l e d a gr e e m e nt , he unm i s t a kabl ya dm i tt e d pa rt i c i pa t i ng i n the al l eged conspi ra cyw i th the re qu i si t e s t at e of m i nd . W hen asked by the di stri ct c o u rt if h e w a s p le a d in g g u iltyb e c au s e h e w a s g u ilty , h e s a id “I ’d g u e s s I ’d h a v e to s a y y e s . ” N otonl y i s thi s r e c or d de voi d of pl a i n e rr or , buthi s pl e aa gr e e m e nta nd h is p le aa llo c u tio n ta k e n to g e th e rd e m o n s tr a te ac le a rf a c tu a l b a s is f

o rth e p le ato w hi c h he a dm i tt e d. 2) T hu s, hi s a tt em ptt o v i t i at e hi s w ai ver of the ri gh tt o app ea l fa i l s. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. M i chl i n, 34 F . 3d 89 6 (9th C i r. 19 94 ); U ni t ed S t at es v. B ar am dyka, 95 F . 3d 840, 843 ( 9th C i r . 1996) ( va l i d appe a l w a i ve r s s e rve a n “ i m port a nt funct i on i n the j ud i ci al adm i ni stra t i ve proces s” ). AP P E AL DI S MI S S E D.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 22

- 00556

- CR

LEO REY BERNAL
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 156th District Court of Live Oak County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. LCV220113

JUDGMENT
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on
appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.

March 30, 2023
Edina HARSAY, Petitioner v. UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS

No. 19-172

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 25, 2019

Petition for rehearing denied.
STATE of North Carolina v. Bobby GRADY.

No. 473P03.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 4, 2003.

Bobby Grady, Pro Se.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, C. Branson Vickory, III, District Attorney, for State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th day of December 2003."

*399Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Wayne County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th day of December 2003."
Clifford Gene WALLACE, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6489

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

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