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 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Hydrogen Engine Center, Inc. (the
      "company") on Form 10-QSBA for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Donald C. Vanderbrook,
      Chief Executive Officer of the company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
      1350,
      as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 consolidated financial condition of the company as of the dates presented
      and consolidated results of operations of the company for the periods presented.





May
                19, 2008
            /s/
                Donald C. VanderbrookDonald C. Vanderbrook,Chief Executive Officer




This
      certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DUSTIN VAUGHN PARRISH.

No. COA04-769

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed January 4, 2005

This case not for publication

Mecklenburg County, No. 03 CRS 62787.

*Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Myra L. Griffin, for the State.*

*Jon W. Myers for defendant-appellant.*

MARTIN, Chief Judge.

Defendant pled guilty on 2 May 2002 to one count of taking indecent liberties with a child. Judge Sanford L. Steelman, Jr. sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of a minimum of 19 months and a maximum of 23 months. Judge Steelman ordered suspension of the term and placed defendant on supervised probation for 30 months. On 28 January 2004 Judge J. Gentry Caudill found defendant violated multiple conditions of probation and activated the sentence. Defendant gave notice of appeal from the judgment revoking probation and activating the sentence.

Defendant's counsel has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,* 386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, *reh'g denied,* 388 U.S. 924, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1377 (1967). In accordance with the mandate ofthis decision, he has attached to the brief a letter which he wrote to defendant advising him of his inability to find error and of defendant's right to file his own written arguments. Counsel provided defendant with copies of the record on appeal, the transcript and the brief filed on defendant's behalf. Defendant has not filed any written arguments on his own.

We have carefully reviewed the record and briefs. We are unable to find possible error to support a meaningful appeal. We accordingly dismiss the appeal.

Dismissed.

Judges McCULLOUGH and CALABRIA concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).
SMITH v. PARMAEI.

No. 141P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 6, 2005.

Michael E. Ciochina, Asheville, for Christiane N. Smith.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th day of March 2005 by Defendant for "Notice of Appeal":

"Motion Dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of April 2005."
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 this Quarterly Report of Modena 4 Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending July 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, P. Thomas
Kolfenbach, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certifies to the best of his knowledge, 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; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.


/s/ P. Thomas Kolfenbach
--------------------------
P. Thomas Kolfenbach
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer

September 14, 2004
Quintin Irving BROWN, Petitioner, v. CITY OF RICHMOND, VIRGINIA.

No. 18-9741

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

The petition for rehearing is denied.
Mitchell TAEBEL, Petitioner, v. MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, et al.

No. 19-5475

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

The petition for rehearing is denied.
STATE v. BETHEA

COA03-1339.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 17, 2004.

Certification Date September 7, 2004.

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
# Official Journal L 328/2016

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 328 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 592 December 2016 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 328

English edition

Legislation

Volume 592 December 2016

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2070 of 14 September 2016 laying down implementing technical standards for templates, definitions and IT-solutions to be used by institutions when reporting to the European Banking Authority and to competent authorities in accordance with Article 78(2) of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2070 of 14 September 2016 laying down implementing technical standards for templates, definitions and IT-solutions to be used by institutions when reporting to the European Banking Authority and to competent authorities in accordance with Article 78(2) of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (
  1
  )

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 23-0669

CITY AND COUNTY OF BUTTESILVER BOW, MONTANA,

Applicant and Appellant,

v.

BUTTE POLICE PROTECTIVE 

ASSOCIATION,

Respondent and Appellee. 

ORDER GRANTING

EXTENSION OF TIME

Upon consideration of the Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to file 

Appellant City and County of Butte-Silver Bow, Montana’s reply brief, there having 

been no objection from Respondent/Appellee, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant City and County of Butte-Silver 

Bow, Montana is granted a 10-day extension, up to and including June 14, 2024, to 

file its reply brief. 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 4 2024

06/04/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0669
STATE v. COOPER.

No. COA04-1046.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed April 5, 2005.

Certification Date April 25, 2005.

Appeal from New Hanover, (03CRS5727, 03CRS5728, 03CRS5729).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



QuadraMed Corporation

Reston, Virginia



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-38309; 333-36189; 333-44985; 333-55775;
333-66793; 333-80617 and 333-87067) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-16385; 333-35937; 333-39796; 333-56171; 333-75945; 333-87426; 333-114189; 333-118580; and 333-118581) of QuadraMed Corporation of our report dated March 15, 2005, relating to the
consolidated financial statements appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and to the incorporation by reference of our report dated March 15, 2005, relating to the financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.



/s/    BDO Seidman, LLPBDO Seidman, LLP




San Jose, California

March 21, 2005
STATE v. Brian Frank GONZALES.

No. 339PA04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 30, 2004.

William B. Crumpler, Assistant Attorney General, John Carriker, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th day of August 2004 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Brief:

> "Motion Allowed. Defendant (Gonzales) shall have up to and including the 27th day of September 2004 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 30th day of August 2004."
Abraham HERNANDEZ-ZAVALA, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-7008

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 27, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 24.1



POWER OF ATTORNEY



Each individual whose signature appears below constitutes and appoints Keith
B. Hagen as his attorney-in-fact, for him in any and all capacities, to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K, for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2005 (the Annual Report), and any amendments thereto, and to file the same, with
exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting to said attorney-in-fact, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done
in connection therewith, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that the said attorney-in-fact or his substitute or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue
hereof.



Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, the Annual Report has been signed by the following persons in the capacities and on the dates indicated.



|                                             |  |                                                                   |  |              
|-------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------
|Name                                         |  | Title                                                             |  | Date         
|                                             |  |                                                                  
|/s/ Keith B. HagenKeith B. Hagen             |  | Chief Executive Officer and Director(Principal Executive Officer) |  | March 9, 2006
|                                             |  |                                                                  
|/s/ Robert L. PevensteinRobert L. Pevenstein |  | Chairman                                                          |  | March 9, 2006
|                                             |  |                                                                  
|/s/ Lawrence P. EnglishLawrence P. English   |  | Director                                                          |  | March 9, 2006
|                                             |  |                                                                  
|/s/ Robert W. MillerRobert W. Miller         |  | Director                                                          |  | March 9, 2006
|                                             |  |                                                                  
|/s/ James E. PeeblesJames E. Peebles         |  | Director                                                          |  | March 9, 2006
Exhibit 31.1CERTIFICATIONSI, Edward F. Feighan, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ProCentury Corporation (“ProCentury”);2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of ProCentury as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. ProCentury’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for ProCentury and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating toProCentury, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of ProCentury’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures as at the end of the period concerned by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in ProCentury’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during ProCentury’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, ProCentury’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. ProCentury’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to ProCentury’s auditors and theaudit committee of ProCentury’s board of directors: a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectProCentury’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in ProCentury’s internal control over financial reporting.   May 10, 2006   Date     /s/ Edward F. Feighan   Signature     Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer   Title  
32
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JOHN ALVIN BLANTON, II,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, 

District Judge. (1:12-cr-00194-CCE-1)

Submitted: July 12, 2013 Decided: August 2, 2013

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram, 

First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John Alvin Blanton, II, appeals his convictions and 

184-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to 

possession of a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006), and possession of a 

stolen firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j) (2006). 

Blanton’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no 

meritorious issues for appeal. Blanton was notified of his 

right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. 

The Government has declined to file a response brief. Following 

a careful review of the record, we affirm. 

Before accepting Blanton’s guilty plea, the district 

court conducted a thorough plea colloquy, fully complying with 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and ensuring that Blanton’s plea was knowing 

and voluntary and supported by an independent factual basis. 

See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). 

The court subsequently followed all necessary procedural steps 

in sentencing Blanton, properly calculating his Guidelines 

range, considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors and 

the parties’ arguments, and providing an individualized 

assessment based on the facts presented. See Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Blanton’s within-Guidelines 

sentence is presumed substantively reasonable on appeal, and he 
3

has not met his burden to rebut this presumption. United 

States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

in this case and have found no meritorious issues. We therefore 

affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that 

counsel inform Blanton, in writing, of the right to petition the 

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If 

Blanton requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes 

that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move 

in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. 

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on 

Blanton. 

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.

AFFIRMED
STATE of North Carolina v. Frederick Benjamin McQUAIG.

No. 612P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 3, 2005.

Adrian M. Lapas, Goldsboro, for Frederick McQuaig.

Iain M. Stauffer, Associate Attorney General, James E. Hardin, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 8th day of December 2004 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the orders 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 3rd day of February 2005."
Samuel C. MOHORNE, Petitioner v. BEAL BANK, et al.

No. 19-599

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
H. R. 1528 

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen 

An Act 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to allow a veterinarian to transport and 

dispense controlled substances in the usual course of veterinary practice outside 

of the registered location. 

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 ‘‘Veterinary Medicine Mobility 

Act of 2014’’. 

SEC. 2. TRANSPORT AND DISPENSING OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES 

IN THE USUAL COURSE OF VETERINARY PRACTICE. 

Section 302(e) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 

822(e)) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘(e)’’ and inserting ‘‘(e)(1)’’; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a registrant who is a veterinarian shall not be required to have a separate registration in 

order to transport and dispense controlled substances in the usual 

course of veterinary practice at a site other than the registrant’s 

registered principal place of business or professional practice, so 

long as the site of transporting and dispensing is located in a 

State where the veterinarian is licensed to practice veterinary medicine and is not a principal place of business or professional practice.’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
STATE v. GANT.

No. COA04-496.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed April 5, 2005.

Certification Date April 25, 2005.

Appeal from Lenoir, (00CRS50957, 00CRS9560).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Cephis Aaron HYMAN.

No. 4P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 1, 2004.

Joseph E. Zeszotarski, Jr., Raleigh, for Hyman.

Patricia A. Duffy, Assistant Attorney General, W. Robert Caudle, II, District Attorney, for State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 5th day of January 2004 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Attorney General, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st day of April 2004."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th day of January 2004 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, 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 1st day of April 2004."
ELWELL v. STATE of NC.

No. 82P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 3, 2005.

Anne M. Middleton, Assistant Attorney General, Frank R. Parrish, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th day of February *4122005 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 3rd day of March 2005."
Cora KERTON, Petitioner, v. SOCIETY HILL AT DROYERS POINT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, et al.

No. 19-60

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4942 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4942

  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on crank-gear and parts 
                                thereof.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 15, 2008

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on crank-gear and parts 
                                thereof.

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

SECTION 1. CRANK-GEAR AND PARTS THEREOF.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.24.70 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to crank-gear and parts 
thereof) is amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/
2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```