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

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Bank of the James Financial Group, Inc.



|                   |  |                                         |  |                                                               
|------------------ |  | --------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|                   |  | BANK OF THE JAMES FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.
|                   |  |                                        
|Date: May 13, 2009 |  | By                                      |  | /S/ Robert R. Chapman III                                     
|                   |  |                                         |  | Robert R. Chapman III, President                              
|                   |  |                                         |  | (Principal Executive Officer)                                 
|                   |  |                                        
|Date: May 13, 2009 |  | By                                      |  | /S/ J. Todd Scruggs                                           
|                   |  |                                         |  | J. Todd Scruggs, Secretary and Treasurer                      
|                   |  |                                         |  | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)



30
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION

November 7, 2008 Revision Cause number: 01

- 1 5

- 00 2 6 6

- CV

Style: Unocal Pipeline Co. v. BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc., ConocoPhillips

Transportation Alaska, Inc. and ExxonMobil Pipeline Co.

Date motion s filed * : September 3 , 201 5

Type of motion s : Motion s to Appear Pro Hac Vice by L ar a E

. Romansic and Steven G.

Reed

Part ies filing motion s : Appellee s BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc., ConocoPhillips Transportation

Alaska, Inc.

, and ExxonMobil Pipeline Co.

Document to be filed: N/A

Is appeal accelerated? No.

Ordered that motion s are :

 Granted

 Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________

The motions to appear pro hac vice by non

- resident attorneys Lara E. Romansic and

Steven G. Reed are denied without prejudice to refiling with the required motions in

support by a Texas resident attorney

. See T EX

. R ULES G OVERN

. B AR A DM ’ N

, R ULE

XIX(b) (2015) (“The motion of the non

- resident attorney seeking permission to

participate in Texas proceedings must be accompanied by motion of the resident

practicing Texas attorney with whom the non

- resident attorney will be associated in the

proceeding of a particular cause.

. . . ”)

.

Judge's signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes



Date: February 15, 2015
STATE v. Robert Charles SINAPI.

No. 274A04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 4, 2004.

William B. Crumpler, Assistant Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State.

Kyle Hall, Raleigh, for Robert Charles Sinapi.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd day of August 2004 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Brief:

> "Motion Allowed. Defendant (Robert Charles Sinapi) shall have up to and including the 3rd day of September 2004 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 4th day of August 2004."
STATE of North Carolina v. Danny Dean FROGGE.

No. 413A95-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 1, 2004.

Valerie B. Spalding, Special Deputy Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State.

Dudley A. Witt, Winston-Salem, Laurie A. Schlossberg, Garland B. Baker, Don Willey, Jefferson, for Frogge.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Attorney General on the 11th day of February 2004 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Forsyth County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

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

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Brief of the Appellant shall be submitted to this Court within thirty days and Brief of the Appellee shall be submitted thirty days thereafter.
Exhibit 31.2CERTIFICATIONSI, Erin E. West, 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))and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and15d-15(f)) for ProCentury and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to ProCentury,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonableassurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financialstatements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accountingprinciples;  c) 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  d) 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 who havea significant role in ProCentury’s internal control over financial reporting.     November 8, 2006         Date         /s/ Erin E. West     Signature       Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer     Title  
39
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: November 6, 2014 518707 

________________________________

In the Matter of HERMAN BANK,

Petitioner,

v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

STEVEN RACETTE, as

Superintendent of Great

Meadow Correctional

Facility,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: September 16, 2014

Before: Peters, P.J., Stein, McCarthy, Devine and Clark, JJ.

__________

Herman Bank, Coxsackie, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H.

Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this

Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Washington

County) to review a determination of respondent which found

petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner, an inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78

proceeding seeking to annul a tier II disciplinary determination

finding him guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. The

Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination at

issue has been administratively reversed, all references thereto

have been expunged from petitioner's institutional record and the

mandatory $5 surcharge has been refunded to petitioner's inmate

account. In view of this, and given that petitioner has received

all the relief to which he is entitled, the matter is dismissed
-2- 518707 

as moot (see Matter of Howell v Fischer, 116 AD3d 1312, 1312

[2014]; Matter of Burroughs v Martuscello, 111 AD3d 1208, 1208

[2013]).

Peters, P.J., Stein, McCarthy, Devine and Clark, JJ.,

concur.

ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without

costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4978 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on a certain specialty monomer. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 15, 2008 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on a certain 

specialty monomer. 

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

3 SECTION 1. A CERTAIN SPECIALTY MONOMER. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.23.21 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 a certain specialty monomer) is amended by striking the 

7 date in the effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/ 

8 2011’’. 

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

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


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4978 IH

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

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 12(b)

                       CHASE PREFERRED CAPITAL CORPORATION
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                    AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDEND REQUIREMENTS


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                              For the Year             For the Year
(in thousands, except ratio):                                               Ended 12/31/00          Ended 12/31/99
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                                             <C>                     <C>
Net income                                                                      $    484,350            $     70,127
                                                                                ------------            ------------
Fixed charges:
      Interest expense                                                                 4,879                       0
                                                                                ------------            ------------
Total fixed charges                                                                    4,879                       0
                                                                                ------------            ------------
Earnings before fixed charges                                                   $    489,229            $     70,127
                                                                                ============            ============
Fixed charges, as above                                                         $      4,879            $          0
Preferred stock dividend requirements                                                382,138                  44,550
                                                                                ------------            ------------
Fixed charges including preferred stock dividends                               $    387,017            $     44,550
                                                                                ============            ============
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges and
      preferred stock dividend requirements                                             1.26                    1.57
                                                                                ============            ============
</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated June
24, 2005 relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of the internal controls over financial reporting of Viisage Technology, Inc. (the Company) appearing in the Companys Amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the
year ended December 31, 2004 into the Companys previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No.s 333-28695, 333-42485, 333-90177, 333-36734 and 333-120156).



|                     
|---------------------
|/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP 
|                     
|Boston, Massachusetts
|July 5, 2005
STATE v. Jimmy McNEILL.

No. 615A03.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 6, 2005.

John Watters, Special Deputy Attorney General, Kristy M. Newton, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd day of June 2005 by Defendant Motion for leave to file a supplemental brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of June 2005."
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

COMMERCE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP #9229,

Appellant,

v.

TONY POUTOUS,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-2801

[May 2, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; John J. Murphy, III, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

062018CA007659AXXXCE.

Jonathan R. O'Boyle of The O'Boyle Law Firm, Deerfield Beach, for 

appellant.

Kunal A. Mirchandani of Klein Law Group, PA, Boca Raton, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
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 2003

I, Roger L. Koenig, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, that the Annual Report of Carrier Access Corporation on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of Carrier Access Corporation.



|                    |  |        |  |                        
|------------------- |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|                    |  | By:    |  | /s/ ROGER L. KOENIG    
|                    |  | Name:  |  | Roger L. Koenig        
|Date: March 9, 2006 |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer

I, Gary Gatchell, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, that the Annual Report of Carrier Access Corporation on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Carrier Access Corporation.



|                    |  |        |  |                                                     
|------------------- |  | ------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|                    |  | By:    |  | /s/ GARY GATCHELL                                   
|                    |  | Name:  |  | Gary Gatchell                                       
|Date: March 9, 2006 |  | Title: |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### WHELAN et al. v. RILEY, Assessor and Collector of Taxes.

No. 14306.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

June 30, 1953.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 3, 1933.

John E. Taylor, Marshall, Tex., Morton Taylor, Sinton, Tex., for appellant.

C. M. Turlington, Marshall, Tex., Shirley W. Peters, Dallas, Tex., for appellee.

Before HOLMES, BORAH, and RIVES, Circuit Judges.

HOLMES, Circuit Judge.

This is an action by two individuals against an assessor and collector of taxes of Harrison County, Texas, complaining about the plan of tax assessment, conducted by the defendant during his long and uninterrupted tenure of the office held by him, which plan, among other things, is alleged to be in violation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. No federal jurisdiction is asserted on the ground of diversity of citizenship; the sole jurisdictional claim is that a federal question is presented by the record, the determination of which will decide a controversy between the parties involving more than, three thousand dollars exclusive of interest and costs.

In their brief, page 2, the “appellants predicate this appeal upon the single ground that their complaint alleged a cause of action arising under the Constitution of the United States and that jurisdiction to determine this cause is conferred upon the district court by 28 U.S.C. 1331.” The appellants say nothing about the jurisdictional amount required by said Section 1331 being involved, nor does it appear in the record that such amount is involved in any controversy between the parties. Millions may be involved in a controversy between appellee and some persons not parties to the suit; hut in' what amount the appellants will be affected by the result of this suit is not clearly alleged.

In their brief, in response to hypothetical questions as to what tax is restrained, what assessment is restrained, what levy is restrained, what collection is restrained, the appellants say: “The answer is plain; the only thing which is sought to be restrained is a ‘system’ and only so far as such system violates the statutes of Texas. All lawful acts of the appellee are left untouched by the relief sought.”

In addition to the absence of the requisite jurisdictional amount, we think a definite federal question, integrated in the *514record on which the decision of the case would turn for one side or the other, is also lacking. Therefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
      REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350(AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
      2002)





I,
William S. Creekmuir, as Chief Financial Officer of Simmons Company (the
“Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), that to my
knowledge:





(1) the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 29,
2008 (the “Report”), being filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, 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 results of operations of the Company.





Date:  August
4, 2008     /s/ William S.
Creekmuir


Name: William
S. Creekmuir


Title: Chief
Financial Officer











A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Simmons Company and will be retained by Simmons Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2017131EN.01002302.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 20.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 131/23 |

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/427 of 10 March 2016 amending Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 as regards emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6)

(
[Official Journal of the European Union L 82 of 31 March 2016](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2016_082_R_TOC)
)

On page 72, in point 4 of Appendix 7:

for:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘4.1.3. | With agreement of the type-approval authority, a PEMS test can also be driven by a different operator witnessed by a Technical Service, provided that at least the tests of the vehicles required by of this Appendix ...’, |

read:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘4.1.3. | With agreement of the type-approval authority, a PEMS test can also be driven by a different operator witnessed by a Technical Service, provided that at least the tests of the vehicles required by points 4.2.2 and 4.2.6 of this Appendix ...’. |

---
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
RULE 13(a)-14(b) AND 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 Commerce Energy Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q/A (Amendment No. 2) for the quarterly period ending January 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Peter Weigand, President
(principal executive officer) of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:  1.
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company. Date: July 12, 2005
    
    By:
    
    /s/ PETER WEIGANDPETER WEIGANDPresident(Principal Executive Officer)