alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32
                                                                    ----------

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

I, Gary Musselman, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of Pacel Corporation (the "Company") do 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 my knowledge:

This Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:  April 14, 2005
                                          /s/ GARY MUSSELMAN
                                          ----------------------
                                          Gary Musselman
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
                                          Chief Financial Officer
* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40121

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

REGINALD LAMON COLEMAN

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:06-CR-12-7

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Reginald Lamon Coleman appeals the sentence imposed following his

guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute or dispense or possess with the

intent to distribute or dispense cocaine. Coleman challenges the district court’s

determination of drug quantity, arguing that the court should have employed a

higher burden of proof than the ordinary preponderance of the evidence

standard. Because Coleman did not object on this ground in the district court,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 15, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-40121

2

review is for plain error. See United States v. Alvarado-Santilano, 434 F.3d 794,

795 (5th Cir. 2005). Although this court has previously suggested that there

may be circumstances when relevant conduct so greatly increases the sentence

that a higher standard of proof must apply, this court has never expressly

adopted this “tails wags the dog” doctrine. United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d

337, 344 (5th Cir. 1993). Therefore, the district court’s use of the preponderance

of the evidence standard is not plain error. See United States v. Hull, 160 F.3d

265, 272 (5th Cir. 1998). 

Coleman also argues that the district court erred in calculating the

quantity of drugs attributable to him because the court relied only on his

uncorroborated confession. Drug amounts may be determined from any

information with sufficient indicia of reliability, including uncorroborated

hearsay. United States v. West, 58 F.3d 133, 138 (5th Cir. 1995). Because the

court’s finding that the conspiracy involved more than 150 kilograms of cocaine

is plausible in light of the record as a whole, the district court’s finding was not

clearly erroneous. See Burton v. United States, 237 F.3d 490, 500 (5th Cir.

2000).

Coleman also argues that his sentence is unreasonable because the district

court did not articulate sufficient reasons and the sentence is greater than

necessary to accomplish the objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court

imposed a sentence within the guidelines range and therefore was not required

to provide a lengthy explanation. See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456,

2468 (2007). Because Coleman was sentenced within the properly calculated

guidelines range, his sentence is presumptively reasonable. Rita, 127 S. Ct. at

2462-66; United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). Coleman

does not rebut this presumption. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Annual Report of VASCO Data Security International, Inc. (the company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 (the Report), I, Clifford K.
Bown, Chief Financial 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 the best of my knowledge:



| | i. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | ii. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Clifford K. Bown   
|Clifford K. Bown       
|Chief Financial Officer

March 13, 2009
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-58,749-03

IN RE DARBY NATHANIEL DANIELS, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 728606-B IN THE 185TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the original

jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that he filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus

in the 185th District Court of Harris County, that more than 35 days have elapsed, and that the

application has not yet been forwarded to this Court.

On May 14, 2014, we held this application in abeyance and ordered Respondent, the District

Clerk of Harris County, to file a response. According to the response, the State received Relator’s

habeas application on December 3, 2013, and the trial court entered an order designating issues on

January 30, 2014. This order was untimely. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(b)(c); Martin
2

v. Hamlin, 25 S.W.3d 718 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). 

We conditionally grant mandamus relief and direct Respondent to immediately forward

Relator’s habeas application to this Court. The writ of mandamus will issue only if Respondent fails

to comply with this opinion.

Delivered: July 23, 2014

Do not publish
----

(2004/C 33 E/006)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2448/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 August 2002)

Subject:   Plans for a major mining project in Romanian Transylvania to extract gold using toxic cyanide

Source: De Volkskrant, 13 July 2002 and 17 July 2002.

----
IN RE J.N.H.

No. COA08-738.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 18, 2008.

Certification Date December 8, 2008.

Appeal from Cabarrus (06JA140).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
Exhibit 12.1

RAIT Financial Trust

Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred Share
Dividends

(dollars in thousands)



|                                                                               |  |                                 |          |   |      |   |         |  |      |        |      |   |        |  |   |       
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | ------------------------------- | -------- | - | ---- | - | ------- |  | ---- | ------ | ---- | - | ------ |  | - | ------
|                                                                               |  | For the years endedDecember 31,
|                                                                               |  | 2007                            |          |   | 2006 |   | 2005    |  | 2004 |        | 2003
|Net income (loss) from continuing operations as adjusted for minority interest |  | $                               | (437,102 | ) |      | $ | 74,704  |  | $    | 75,074 |      | $ | 63,098 |  | $ | 45,379
|Add back fixed charges:                                                        |  |                                 |          |   |      |   |         |  |      |        |      |   |        |  |   |       
|Interest expense                                                               |  |                                 | 700,216  |   |      |   | 63,410  |  |      | 13,011 |      |   | 5,435  |  |   | 4,642 
|                                                                               |  |                                 |          |   |      |   |         |  |      |        |      |   |        |  |   |       
|Earnings before fixed charges and preferred share dividends                    |  |                                 | 263,114  |   |      |   | 138,114 |  |      | 88,085 |      |   | 68,533 |  |   | 50,021
|Fixed charges and preferred share dividends                                    |  |                                 |          |   |      |   |         |  |      |        |      |   |        |  |   |       
|Interest expense                                                               |  |                                 | 700,216  |   |      |   | 63,410  |  |      | 13,011 |      |   | 5,435  |  |   | 4,642 
|Preferred share dividends                                                      |  |                                 | 11,817   |   |      |   | 10,079  |  |      | 10,076 |      |   | 5,279  |  |   |      
|                                                                               |  |                                 |          |   |      |   |         |  |      |        |      |   |        |  |   |       
|Subtotal                                                                       |  |                                 | 712,033  |   |      | $ | 73,489  |  | $    | 23,087 |      | $ | 10,714 |  | $ | 4,642 
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges and preferred share dividends               |  |                                 | 0.4x     |   |      |   | 1.9x    |  |      | 3.8x   |      |   | 6.4x   |  |   | 10.8x
Exhibit 10.21


 


AMENDMENT TO
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT


 


THIS AMENDMENT TO
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of November 12,
2010, by and between Senior Housing Properties Trust, a Maryland real estate
investment trust (the “Company”) and Reit Management & Research LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company (the “Manager”).


 


WHEREAS, the Company and
the Manager are parties to a Business Management Agreement dated as of January 7,
2010 (the “Original Agreement”) and


 


WHEREAS,  the Company anticipates acquiring certain
medical office buildings, clinics and biomedical, pharmaceutical and laboratory
buildings pursuant to various purchase agreements between the Company and
CommonWealth REIT, formerly known as HRPT Properties Trust (“CWH”), and/or
certain of its subsidiaries, all dated as of November 12, 2010; and


 


WHEREAS, the Company and
the Manager desire to amend the Original Agreement to provide that the “Management
Fee” (defined therein) will be calculated using the historical cost of the
properties so acquired on the books of CWH and not the price set forth in the
purchase agreements;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the
parties hereto agree that the Original Agreement is amended as follows:


 


The definition of “Purchase
Agreements” in the third paragraph of Section 10. Compensation. of
the Original Agreement is amended as follows:


 


“Purchase Agreements”
shall mean the various purchase and sale agreements, all dated as of May 5,
2008, pursuant to which the Company contracted to buy from HRPT Properties
Trust and/or certain of its subsidiaries certain medical office buildings,
clinics and biomedical, pharmaceutical and laboratory buildings and  the various purchase and sale agreements, all
dated as of November 12, 2010, pursuant to which the Company contracted to
buy from CommonWealth REIT and/or certain of its subsidiaries certain medical
office buildings, clinics and biomedical, pharmaceutical and laboratory
buildings.


 


In all other respects the
Original Agreement remains in full force and effect and unamended.


 


[Signature page to
follow]


 

















 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed as an instrument under
seal by their duly authorized officers, as of the day and year first above
written.


 


 


	
   

  	
  SENIOR
  HOUSING PROPERTIES TRUST

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ David J. Hegarty

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name: David J. Hegarty

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   Title: President
  and Chief Operating Officer

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  REIT
  MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH LLC

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Mark L. Kleifges

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name: Mark L. Kleifges

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   Title: Executive
  Vice President
----

(2004/C 33 E/099)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1242/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject:   Landfill Directive

What is the current percentage of waste being diverted to landfill in each Member State?

What are the current levels of landfill tax levied in each Member State?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

According to the data submitted by Member States for the report on the implementation of Community Waste Legislation for the period 1995-1997 (1) landfilling is the main form of waste treatment in the Community for domestic waste, with an average of 60 % being landfilled. The percentage of waste going to landfills differs widely between Member States. Some Member States landfill only 15 % of their domestic waste, while others landfill up to 94 %. For other waste the data submitted was not sufficient to draw any conclusions.

The report shows the following percentages of domestic waste landfilled in the Member States:

The data submitted by Member States for the period 1998-2000 shows a decreasing tendency in landfilling, but a good number of Member States continue to rely heavily on landfill as means of disposing domestic waste. The Commission is about to adopt and publish the report for the period 1998-2000.

So far, there is no Community legislation or harmonisation of national fiscal provisions applied by the Member States in the area of landfill taxes. Therefore, the Commission does not dispose of comprehensive information on these taxes in the Member States. The following information can be found in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) database on environmental taxes (2):

----

(1)  COM(1999)752final.

(2)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/enveco/database_env_taxation.htm.

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Dennis Y. JACKSON.

No. 198P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Dennis Y. Jackson, for Jackson, Dennis Y.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Scott E. Thomas, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*869*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 12th of June 2015 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order 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 20th of August 2015."
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60857

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EDWARD ARTHUR GRIFFIN

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:07-CR-11-1

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Edward Arthur Griffin has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Griffin has filed a response. The record is insufficiently

developed to allow consideration at this time of Griffin’s claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel; such claims generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal

when [they have] not been raised before the district court since no opportunity

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-60857

2

existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” United States v.

Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and

Griffin’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly,

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2.
Joy B. MURRAY v. COUNTY OF PERSON et al. appealed by Janet Clayton, Harold Kelly and Adam Sarver.

No. 413P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

Robert T. Numbers, II, James R. Morgan, Jr., Winston-Salem, for Janet Clayton, et al.

Alan S. Hicks, Roxboro, for Murray.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 664 S.E.2d 58.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th day of September 2008 by Defendants (Janet Clayton, Harold Kelly and Adam Sarver) 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 5th day of February 2009."
STATE v. GREENHILL.

No. COA07-1378.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 17, 2008.

Certification Date July 7, 2008.

Appeal from Durham (06CRS50330).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
# CE2004084EN.01047001.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/470 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/470

---

(2004/C 84 E/0544)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1511/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(28 April 2003)

Subject:   Financial corrections

Subject:

In reply to point 2.57 of the Court of Auditors Annual report for 2001 (1), the Commission states that ‘as part of the follow-up to the 2001 clearance process the Commission services have informed the Portuguese authorities that a financial correction of 2 % of Ifadap expenditure is proposed (EUR 2,8 million)’.

1

Will the Commission provide the report it based this decision?

Will it also provide the IT audit report of Portuguese paying agencies mentioned in point 2.59 of the Court of Auditors report, as well as any other audit reports which the Commission carried out in this connection?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 June 2003)

(16 June 2003)

The financial correction proposed by the Commission in the case of the Portuguese paying agency Instituto Financeiro de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento da Agricultura e Pescas (Ifadap) is based on analysis of the report by the 2001 EAGGF financial year by the certifying body (in this case the Inspectorate-General for Finance) under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 (2), and corresponds to extrapolation of the errors that body found. Commission officials visited Ifadap from 16 to 20 September 2002 to develop the extrapolation and carry out a general audit covering accreditation of Ifadap as a paying agency.

2

The clearance procedure in connection with imposition of this financial correction has not yet been completed.

The Court of Auditors' 2001 annual report (3) also mentions, as the Honourable Member indicates, a series of computer system audits of paying agencies. In the case of Portugal only the Nacional de Intervençao e Garanta Agricola (INGA) was included.

3

Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of 30 May 2001 deals with public access to Parliament, Council and Commission documents (4). The Commission will examine the Honourable Member's request under the procedure specified therein.

4

The Commission reminds the Honourable Member that under the Framework agreement on relations between Parliament and the Commission, signed on 5 July 2000, the President of Parliament, the chairpersons of the parliamentary committees concerned, the Bureau and the Conference of Presidents can ask for confidential information from the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 295, 28.11.2002, p. 58.

1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section, OJ L 158, 8.7.1995.

2

(3)  OJ C 295, 28.11.2002.

3

(4)  OJ L 145, 31.5.2001.

4

---
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 on Form 10-Q of LIN TV Corp. for the three months ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Vincent L. Sadusky, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Richard J. Schmaeling, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:






(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and






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







Dated: July 29, 2010/s/ Vincent L. Sadusky


Vincent L. Sadusky


President and Chief Executive Officer








Dated: July 29, 2010            /s/ Richard J. Schmaeling


Richard J. Schmaeling


Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
LINEBERGER v. NCDOC, et al.

No. 141A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 2, 2008.

Ann B. Petersen, Chapel Hill, for Lineberger.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd day of October 2008 by Defendants for Leave to File Reply Brief:

"Motion Allowed. By order of the Court in conference this the 2nd day of October 2008."
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 2, 2024

NO. 03

- 23

- 00648

- CR

Melissa Lynn Schmalhorst , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas , Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTI CE BY RNE, JUSTICES SMITH AND THEOFANIS

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the tr i a l court

. Melissa Ly nn

Schmalhorst has file d a motion to dismiss the appeal. Therefore, the Court grants the motion

,

and dismisses the appeal. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both i n this

Court and in the court below.