alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

The following certification accompanies theissuer’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB, for the quarterly period ended December 31,2004, and is not filed, as provided in Release 33-8212, 34-47551.

 

In connection with the accompanying QuarterlyReport of Treaty Oak Bancorp, Inc. (“Treaty Oak”) on Form 10-QSB for thequarter ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Terry W. Hamann,President and Chief Executive Officer of Treaty Oak, hereby certify pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 that:

 

(1)                                  theReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Treaty Oak.

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to Treaty Oak and will beretained by Treaty Oak and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 
| Dated: February 14, 2005 |                                  |
|--------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                     |                                  |
|                     | /s/ Terry W. Hamann                   |   |
|                     | Terry W. Hamann                       |
|                     | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
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 AEC 1, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the three month period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Blaine
Froats, Chief Executive Officer of 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 Report fully complies with the requirement 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.

By: /s/ Blaine Froats
-----------------------
Chief Executive Officer
August 19, 2005
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7269
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LUTHER RUTH, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR90-91-S, CA-96-2300-S) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Luther Ruth, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Suzanne Skalla, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* To the extent that the district court held that Appellant waived the first claim by failing to raise it on direct appeal, Stone v. Powell , 428 U.S. 465, 477 n.10 (1976), and that the second claim is noncognizable in a § 2255 action because it was rejected on direct appeal, Davis v. United States , 417 U.S. 333, 342 (1974), we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. * United States v. Ruth, Nos. CR-90-91-S; CA-96-2300-S (D. Md. July 31, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 28.1
                                ------------ 
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE
                         UCFC FUNDING CORPORATION
             MANUFACTURED HOUSING PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES
                              SERIES 1997-1               
                                
 
    In accordance with Section 3.11 of that certain Pooling and
 Servicing Agreement relating to UCFC Funding Corporation
 Manufactured Housing Pass-Through Certificates Series 1997-1, 
 dated as of March 1, 1997 (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement"),
 by and among UCFC Funding Corporation, as depositor, United Companies 
 Lending Corporation, as servicer (the "Servicer"), and The First 
 National Bank of Chicago, as trustee, the undersigned officer
 of the Servicer does hereby certify as follows: (i) a review of
 the activities of the Servicer during 1997 and of performance
 under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under the
 undersigned officer's supervision; and (ii) to the best of such
 undersigned officer's knowledge, based on such review, the
 Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Pooling
 and Servicing Agreement for 1997.
 
    EXECUTED this 26th day of March, 1998. 
 
 
                                                                 
                        /s/ C. GERON HARGON
                        -------------------------------
                            C. Geron Hargon
                            President
                            United Companies Lending Corporation
     
                          PAGE 9
<TABLE>
                          NATIONAL FIBERSTOK CORPORATION
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                         (IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT RATIO DATA)


   <CAPTION>

                                                  Year Ended
                                                  December 31,
                                               _______________
                                   1992    1993    1994     1995     1996
                                   ____    ____    ____     ____     ____

   <S>                            <C>    <C>     <C>      <C>      <C>


   NATIONAL FIBERSTOK-HISTORICAL
    CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA:

   Income (loss) before income    (757)  (4,893) (2,015)  (1,040)  (2,199)
   taxes and extraordinary items

   Interest expense(a)             803    2,873   2,975    3,179    8,126
                                  -----  ------- -------  -------  -------
    Earnings                        46   (2,020)    961    2,139    5,928

   Interest Expense(a)             803    2,873   2,975    3,179    8,126
                                  -----  ------- ------   -------  -------

    Fixed charges                  803    2,873   2,975    3,179    8,126
   Ratio of earnings to fixed        --        --       --        --        --
   changes(b)                     -----  ------- ------   -------   ------

   <FN>
   (a)  Interest expense includes amortization of deferred financing costs and
   debt discounts.

   (b)  Earnings were insufficient to cover fixed charges by $757, $4,893,
   $2,014, $1,040 and $2,198 for the years ended December 31, 1992, 1993,
   1994, 1995 and 1996, respectively.
   </FN>
   </TABLE>
GILCHRIST v. FRENCH.

No. COA04-121.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 15, 2005.

Certification Date April 4, 2005.

Appeal from the Wake (01CVD3218).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed and remanded.
HomeNews

# NOAA Historical Hurricane Tracks

## Explore more than 150 years of historical hurricane landfalls.

## Hurricane History

View more than 150 years of hurricane tracking data in your region. Shown here: Category 4 and 5 hurricane tracks that crossed over the state of Florida					between 1910 and 2018. 

NOAA's Historical Hurricane Tracks is a free online tool that allows users to track the paths of historic hurricanes. The site, developed by the NOAA Office for Coastal Management in partnership with NOAA's National Hurricane Center and National Centers for Environmental Information, offers data and information on coastal county hurricane strikes through 2016. It also provides links to detailed reports on the life histories and effects of U.S. tropical cyclones since 1958, with additional U.S. storm paths traced as far back as 1851. The site also contains global hurricane data from as far back as 1851. 

 Historical Hurricane Tracks allows users to search by place name, storm name or year, or latitude and longitude points. With the search results, users can generate a map showing the track of the storm or storms accompanied by a table of related information. 

###### Get **Social**

###### More **Information**

          - Historical Hurricane Tracks
          - Office for Coastal Management
          - National Centers for Environmental Information
          - National Hurricane Center

Contact Us

            - Provide Feedback 
            -  Contact Us 
            -  Report an error 

##### Science. Service.Stewardship.

###### 						About NOS 					

            - About Us
            - NOS Program Offices
            - Media Inquiries
            - Website Acknowledgements

###### 						Resources 					

            - Site Index
            - Disclaimer
            - Freedom of Information Act
            - Accessibility

###### 						More Resources 					

            - Information Quality
            - Privacy Policy
            - NOS For Employees
            - USA.gov

          -  National Ocean Service
          -  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
          -  Department of Commerce

##### 						Social 					

            - 
            - 
            - 
            - 
            -
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 491 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 491

To provide for the mandatory revocation of passports of individuals who 
       are more than $5,000 in arrears in child support payments.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 16, 2007

 Mr. Moore of Kansas (for himself and Mr. Moran of Kansas) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and 
   Means, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a 
 period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the mandatory revocation of passports of individuals who 
       are more than $5,000 in arrears in child support payments.

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

SECTION 1. MANDATORY REVOCATION OF PASSPORTS OF INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE 
              MORE THAN $5,000 IN ARREARS IN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS.

    Section 452(k) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 652(k)) is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``, revocation, or 
        limitation'' and inserting ``or revocation''; and
            (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``may revoke, restrict, 
        or limit'' and inserting ``shall revoke''.
                                 <all>
```
STATE v. Angela Deborah LEWIS.

No. 558PA04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 21, 2005.

Robert C. Montgomery, Assistant Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State.

*164The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th day of February 2005 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Denied. By order of the Court in conference this the 21st day of February 2005."
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: GREGORY MARK LEVITZ

,

Relator. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 3

- 00 188

- CR

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Gregory M. Levitz

, has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in which he

asks this Court to order the 70th District Court of Ector County to render a ruling on his motion to

dismiss the judgment to re

- pay the court appointed attorney’s fee s

.

We have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a district or county court judge in

our district and against a district court judge acting as a magistrate in a court of inquiry in our

district

. T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 22.221(b) (West 2004). Ho wever, b ecause Ector County is

not within the Eighth Court of Appeals district , we are without jurisdiction to consider Relator’s

petition

. See id . at § 22.201(i ), (l); In re Davis , 87 S.W.3d 794, 795 (Tex. App.

– Texarkana 2002,

orig. proceeding) . Accordingly, we dismiss Relator’s petition for writ of mand amus for want of2

jurisdiction.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

August 14, 2013

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
FILED

May 30, 1996

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN SECTION AT KNOXVILLE

CORNELIUS OGLEVIA MURPHY, ) BRADLEY CIRCUIT

)

Appellant )

) NO. 03A01-9511-CV-00403

v. )

)

CARMEN SUZETTE MURPHY )

HUMPHREY, )

)

Appellee ) AFFIRMED and REMANDED

Roger E. Jenne, Cleveland, for the Appellant.

Jeffrey A. Miller, Cleveland, for the Appellee.

O P I N I O N

INMAN, Senior Judge

These parties were divorced in 1986. Custody of Ashley, then 6 months old,

was awarded to her mother, appellee herein.

In June 1995, pursuant to a petition filed by the mother, she was allowed to

remove the child from Bradley County, Tennessee to Singapore. Her second

husband, an executive with the Duracell organization, had accepted a position with

his company in Singapore and she wished to join him there, taking the child with her. 

The father appeals, claiming that the removal was inimical to the best interests of the

child.

We need not burden those interested with a recitation of the evidence offered

on the issue of the propriety of the removal of the child. A great deal of evidence

was offered concerning this issue, particularly as to whether the removal was

contrary to the best interests of Ashley.

The recent case of Gene V. Aaby v. Judy Aaby Strange, ____S.W.2d____,

(Tenn. 1996), opinion filed April 22, 1996, forecloses our decision. The custodial

mother in Aaby petitioned to remove her child from Knoxville to Bardstown,
2

Kentucky, so that she might join her second husband there. This court denied

permission, finding that the removal was adverse to the interests of the child. (No.

03A01-9406-00192, Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 1995). The Supreme Court reversed,

holding that “a custodial parent will be allowed to remove the child from the

jurisdiction unless the non-custodial parent can show by a preponderance of the

evidence that the custodial parent’s motives for moving are vindictive - - that is,

intended to defeat or deter the visitation rights of the non-custodial parent.”

The Court then added a safeguard provision that if removal posed a specific,

serious threat of harm to the child, the non-custodial parent may file a petition for

change of custody based on material change of circumstances.

There is no evidence of vindictiveness in this record, and neither is there

evidence that the removal to Singapore would pose a specific, serious threat of harm

to Ashley.

Finally, we observe that the trial judge fashioned a visitation schedule in his

commendable efforts to assist the appellant to maintain a parental relationship with

Ashley.

The judgment is affirmed at the costs of the appellant and the case is

remanded.

_________________________________

William H. Inman, Senior Judge

CONCUR:

____________________________________

Houston M. Goddard, Presiding Judge

____________________________________

Don T. McMurray, Judge
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-1208

___________________________ Eswin Marco Lopez De Leon lllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner

v. Monty Wilkinson, Acting Attorney General of the United States 1

lllllllllllllllllllll Respondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: February 12, 2021 Filed: February 18, 2021 [Unpublished]

____________ Before GRASZ, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM.

1 Monty Wilkinson has been appointed to serve as Acting Attorney General of the United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c).Guatemalan native and citizen Eswin Marco Lopez De Leon petitions for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. Upon careful consideration of his challenges to the BIA’s order, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of his untimely filed motion to reopen. See Clifton v Holder, 598 F.3d 486, 490-91 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review). The petition for review is denied.

______________________________

-2-
BROWN v. BROWN.

No. COA04-1154.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 5, 2005.

Certification Date July 25, 2005.

Appeal from the Wake (01CVD6280).

Case without published opinion. Reversed and remanded.
IN RE A.M.H.

No. COA04-188

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 3, 2005.

Certification Date May 23, 2005.

Appeal from the Cumberland (02CVD1259).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
Gilbert HEMRIC and Vann Hemric v. Donald GROCE and Betty Groce.

No. 209P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 30, 2005.

Matthew H. Bryant, Winston-Salem, for Donald & Betty Groce.

Raymond A. Finger, for Gilbert & Van Hemric.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 19th day of April 2005 by Defendants 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:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th day of June 2005."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendants on the 19th day of April 2005 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 30th day of June 2005."
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5107 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5107

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 5-year carryback 
for certain net operating losses and to increase the dollar limitation 
                on expensing certain depreciable assets.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 23, 2008

   Ms. Bean introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 5-year carryback 
for certain net operating losses and to increase the dollar limitation 
                on expensing certain depreciable assets.

    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 ``Giving Resources and Opportunities 
to the Workforce Act of 2008''.

SEC. 2. 5-YEAR CARRYBACK FOR CERTAIN NET OPERATING LOSSES.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (H) of section 172(b)(1) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ``or beginning 
during 2007, 2008, or 2009,'' after ``2002,''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to net operating losses for taxable years beginning after 
December 31, 2006.

SEC. 3. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN DOLLAR LIMITATION ON EXPENSING CERTAIN 
              DEPRECIABLE BUSINESS ASSETS.

    (a) Dollar Limitation.--Paragraph (1) of section 179(b) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to limitations) is amended by 
striking ``$125,000 in the case of taxable years beginning after 2006 
and before 2011'' and inserting ``$125,000 in the case of taxable years 
beginning in 2007, 2009, or 2010 and $250,000 in the case of taxable 
years beginning in 2008''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2007.
                                 <all>
```