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 September 30, 2007 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: November 8, 2007


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 September 30, 2007 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: November 8, 2007
#### Bailey Estate.

Argued October 6, 1955.

Before Stern, C. J., Stearns, Jones and Musmanno, JJ.

*25
      *Lloyd F. Engle, Jr.,*for appellant.

*David Roth,*with him *Elliott W. Fmkel,*and *Kaplan, Finkel d Roth,*for appellee.

January 3, 1956:

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Jones,

Isabel Bailey Stilley, a legatee of Virginia H. Bailey, deceased, and an interested party in the decedent’s estate, appeals from a decree of the court below dismissing her petition which prayed that a citation issue directed to Dorothy Schaefer Bailey, executrix of the will of Austin L. Bailey, deceased, to show cause why she should not file a final account for Austin L. Bailey, deceased, as executor of the estate of Virginia H. Bailey.

The learned court below dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner had forfeited her right to the relief sought because of laches. The legal conclusion necessarily depends on the established facts: see *Stimson v. Stimson,*346 Pa. 68, 72, 29 A. 2d 679. In this case, the facts material to a plea of laches appear by the petition and are not disputed by the respondent. They fully justify the decree.

A procedural question was also raised by the appellant under the following circumstances. The hearing judge permitted the respondent to withdraw her answer to the petition more than twenty days after the service of the citation upon her and to file preliminary objections denying the petitioner’s right to the relief sought. The petitioner’s objection to this procedure was raised by her motion to strike the respondent’s preliminary Objections to the petition, which motion the court below denied.

The action of the learned hearing judge in this regard was both correct and appropriate. In *Finley’s Estate,*196 Pa. 140, 146, 46 A. 443 (1900), which arose *26on a petition for a bill of review, the respondents filed both a demurrer and an answer to the petition. By leave of court, the answer was withdrawn and the case was heard on the petition and demurrer. Mr. Justice Mestrezat, speaking for this court, said “We see no error in the action of the court in permitting the withdrawal of the appellees’ answer and the substitution of the demurrer.” The procedure thus endorsed has ever since endured and falls within the discretion of the hearing judge. See Section 2, Rule 1 of the Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Rules, 345 Pa. (lx), which provides that “The court at every stage of any action or proceeding may disregard any error or defect of procedure which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties in interest.” The filing of an answer to the merits in advance of appropriate preliminary objections is such an error or defect of procedure.

Decree affirmed at the appellant’s costs.
**EXHIBIT
      32**







**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 Premier Alliance Group, Inc., a Delaware
      corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30,
      2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the "Report"), Mark S. Elliott, Acting Chief Executive and Financial Officer
      of
      the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that:





(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
                Company.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Premier Alliance Group, Inc., and will be retained by Premier Alliance Group,
      Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.








/s/
                Mark S. ElliottMark
                S. ElliottActing
                Chief Executive and Financial OfficerNovember
                13, 2007
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4786 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Cyazofamid. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 18, 2007 

Mr. REYNOLDS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Cyazofamid. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CYAZOFAMID. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by striking heading 9902.24.56 (relating to 

7 Cyazofamid) and inserting in numerical sequence the fol8 lowing new heading: 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

HR 4786 IH

‘‘ 9902.l.l 4-chloro-2-cyano-N,N-dimethyl-5-(4-methylphenyl)- 

1H-imidazole-1-sulfonamide 

(Cyazofamid Technical) 

(CAS No. 120116–88–3) 

(provided for in subheading 

2935.00.75) and any formulations containing such compound (provided for in subheading 3808.92.15) ............ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
**CERTIFICATION
        OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
 **PURSUANT
        TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**
   In
        connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Effective
        Profitable Software, Inc., for the Quarter ending September 30,
        2007, I, Gary Moore, Chief Executive Officer of Effective
        Profitable Software, Inc. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
        1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
        to
        the best of my knowledge and belief, that:
   1.
        Such
        Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007,
        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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period
        ended September 30, 2007, fairly represents in all material respects, the
        financial condition and results of operations of Effective
        Profitable Software, Inc.
  By:
          */s/Gary Moore*
 Gary
          Moore
 President,
 Chief
          Executive Officer
  November
          19, 2007
EXHIBIT 32

                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 on Form 10-QSB (the "Report") of
AssureTec Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended December 31,
2003, R. Bruce Reeves, the President and Principal Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the
undersigned's 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.


Dated:  February 24, 2004                   /s/  R. Bruce Reeves
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 R. Bruce Reeves, Ph.D.
                                                 President and
                                                 Principal Financial Officer
Seth MITCHELL, Petitioner v. MACY'S, INC., et al.

No. 19-5748

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

The petition for rehearing is denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4811 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4811

  To extend the suspension of duty on 2,3-quinoline dicarboxylic acid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 18, 2007

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the suspension of duty on 2,3-quinoline dicarboxylic acid.

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

SECTION 1. 2,3-QUINOLINE DICARBOXYLIC ACID.

    Heading 9902.24.19 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (relating to 2,3-quinoline dicarboxylic acid) is amended by 
striking the date in the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/
2011''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7401

RICKY LAFAYETTE MURRAY, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. E. RICHARD BAZZLE, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, Chief District Judge. (0:07-cv-03960-DCN)

Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 3, 2009

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricky Lafayette Murray, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Ricky Lafayette Murray seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. MillerEl v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Murray has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

23 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
Jose Francisco RODRIGUEZ-REYES, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES

No. 18-9819

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
| (logo) WELLS  FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 **ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Trust and Servicing Agreementdated as of July 25, 2017, by and among MORGAN STANLEY CAPITAL I INC., asDepositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Servicer, WELLS FARGOBANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Special Servicer, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONALASSOCIATION, as Trustee, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as CertificateAdministrator and Custodian and PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as OperatingAdvisor with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series2017-237P (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein nototherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 10.8 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Marthinsen,Managing Director of Special Servicing do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activities of the Special Servicer during theperiod from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”),and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made undermy supervision, and

 

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the SpecialServicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in allmaterial respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Marthinsen

Daniel Marthinsen, Managing Director

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., et al., Petitioners v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES, LLC, dba Mayo Medical Laboratories, et al.

No. 19-430

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
STATE v. PETERSON

No. COA03-1513

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Filed February 15, 2005

Certification Date March 7, 2005

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4824 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 3-(Ethylsulfonyl)-2- 

pyridinesulfonamide. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 18, 2007 

Mr. LAHOOD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 3- 

(Ethylsulfonyl)-2-pyridinesulfonamide. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 3-(ETHYLSULFONYL)-2-PYRIDINESULFONAMIDE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.33.63 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 3-(Ethylsulfonyl)-2-pyridinesulfonamide) is amended by 

7 striking the date in the effective period column and insert8 ing ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4824 IH

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

June 8, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

132018 Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver HOUDINI PROPERTIES, LLC, Marilyn Kelly Plaintiff-Appellant, Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, v SC: 132018 Justices COA: 266338 Wayne CC: 05-504139-CZ CITY OF ROMULUS, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 13, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consider ed. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the applicati on or take other peremptory action. MCR 7.302(G)(1). The parties shall include among the issues to be addresse d at oral argument: (1) whether the claim of appe al to the Wayne Circuit Cour t from the City of Romulus Zoning Board of Appeals’ (ZBA) variance denial was a “pleading” to which the compulsory joinder rule of MCR 2.203(A) applies, so as to require the plaintiff to assert and include its taking claim in the same docu ment as its claim of appeal; (2) whether, when the plaintiff filed its claim of appeal to the Wayn e Circuit Court from the ZBA’s variance denial, the plaintiff’s claim wa s ripe for review under the rule in Paragon Properties Co v Novi , 452 Mich 568, 583 (1996), which requires a property owner to obtain “a final decision from which an actual or concrete injury can be determined” before asserting a constitutional taking claim; and (3) whether, on ce the Wayne Circuit Court affirmed the plaintiff’s appeal, pursuant to MCL 125.5 85(11) (now MCL 125.3606(1)), of the ZBA’s variance denial, that determination was res judicata with respect to the plaintiff’s constitutional taking claim. The parties may file supplemental briefs within 49 days of the date of this order, but they should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.

The Appellate Practice, Litigation, and Real Property Law Sec tions of the State Bar of Michigan are invited to file a brief or briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determ ination of the issues presente d in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

p0605 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 8, 2007

Clerk
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4808 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on EPDC. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 18, 2007 

Mr. HULSHOF introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on EPDC. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EPDC. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.01.16 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended 

6 by striking ‘‘12/31/2006’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2012’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

9 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

10 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                  5
<MULTIPLIER>               1,000,000

<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                      DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                    110
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                             268
<ALLOWANCES>                                2
<INVENTORY>                               361
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          118
<PP&E>                                    995
<DEPRECIATION>                            671
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          3,250
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     495
<BONDS>                                 1,023
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    1
<OTHER-SE>                              1,014
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            3,250
<SALES>                                 1,589
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        1,589
<CGS>                                   1,112
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           1,421
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          (29)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          639
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         72
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (530)
<INCOME-TAX>                              209
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (321)
<DISCONTINUED>                             38
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                             (288)
<EPS-BASIC>                           (4.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (4.16)




</TABLE>
James Michael BIELA, Petitioner v. NEVADA

No. 19-6204

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nevada denied.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 16, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-41129

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DARREL LYNN COWAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:03-CR-865-1

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

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Darrel Lynn Cowan pleaded guilty to one count of importing

marijuana into the United States in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§§ 952 and 960(a), (b). The district court sentenced him to 46

months in prison, and Cowan now appeals.

Cowan concedes that his argument that the statutes under

which he was convicted are unconstitutional because they treat

drug quantity as sentencing factors rather than elements of the

offense is foreclosed by United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d
No. 04-41129

-2-

580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000). He raises it only to preserve it for

further review.

Cowan also contends that his sentence is unconstitutional in

light of the rule announced in United States v. Booker, 125 S.

Ct. 738 (2005), because the district court imposed the sentence

pursuant to the then-mandatory Federal Sentencing Guidelines,

which Booker rendered advisory. We review for plain error. See

United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir. 2005),

petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517). 

Imposition of a sentence under the former mandatory guideline

regime constitutes error that is plain, i.e., obvious. See

United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d 597, 600 (5th Cir.

2005). 

We reject Cowan’s argument that such error is structural or

presumptively prejudicial with respect to whether the error

affects substantial rights, and we employ the same analysis set

forth in Mares. See id. at 601. As there is no indication in

the record that the district court would have given Cowan a lower

sentence under an advisory system, Cowan cannot demonstrate that

any error in the mandatory application of the Guidelines affected

his substantial rights. See id. 

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.