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 on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2016 (the “Report”) of Hercules Capital, Inc. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Manuel A. Henriquez, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, to the best of my knowledge, that: 

1) The Report 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 Registrant. 

 

| Date: November 3, 2016 | By:    | /S/ MANUEL A. HENRIQUEZ

                                   |
|------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |   | Manuel A. Henriquez                                              |
|                   |   | Chairman, President, and                                         |
|                   |   | Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer) |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7071

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

VELVET RENARD LEGRANDE, III,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (1:98-cr-00286-NCT-2)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 24, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Norman Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender,

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Patrick Auld, Assistant

United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Velvet Renard Legrande, III, appeals the district court’s

order denying his motion filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)

(West 2000 & Supp. 2008). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. United States v. LeGrande, No. 1:98-cr-00286-

NCT-2 (M.D.N.C. June 20, 2008). We deny LeGrande’s motion to

appoint counsel and 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.

AFFIRMED
DRAUGHON v. COBBLESTONE HOA OF CLAYTON, INC.

378A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 13, 2016

J. Matthew Waters, Attorney at Law, Hope Derby Carmichael, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Cobblestone HOA of Clayton, Inc.

Dennis Draughon, Megan Draughon, For Draughon, Dennis, et al.

Tatita Sanchez.

Robert A. Spence, Jr., Attorney at Law, Smithfield.

Robert Sain.

Vincent Franks, Jr.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of October 2016 by Defendant to Consolidate Appeals:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of October 2016."
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of RG Global Lifestyles, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
we, Grant King, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and William C.
Hitchcock, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively 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 financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Grant King                              /s/ William C. Hitchcock
---------------------------                 ---------------------------
Grant King                                  William C. Hitchcock
Chief Executive Officer                     Chief Financial Officer
July 12, 2007                               July 12, 2007
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

136810 Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136810 

 COA: 285333 

Wexford CC: 03-007071-FC 

CLIFTON PAUL MOFFAT,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 18, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion 

for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). 

d0915 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 22, 2008 

 Clerk
**Exhibit10.3.5.2**

 

**SECONDAMENDMENT**

**TO**

**EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT**

**BY AND BETWEEN**

**WESTAFF SUPPORT, INC.  AND DIRK A. SODESTROM**

 

The Employment Contractdated as of January 1, 2001 by and between Westaff Support, Inc.(“Westaff”) and Dirk A. Sodestrom (“you”) and amended effective June 30,2003 is hereby further amended as follows effective June 30, 2004:

 

The first sentence ofSection 3 is hereby deleted and replaced with the following sentence:

 

“You will be paid asalary of Two Hundred Forty Five Thousand Dollars ($245,000) per year.”

 

All other terms andconditions of the above-referenced Employment Contract shall remain in fullforce and effect unless otherwise amended herein.

 

 

**EMPLOYEE:**

 

 
| /s/ Dirk A. Sodestrom |   |
|-----------------------|--------|
| Dirk A. Sodestrom     |

 

 

**WESTAFF SUPPORT, INC.**

 

 
| By:                                           | /s/ Dwight S. Pedersen |   |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|------------------------|--------|--------|
|                                          | Dwight S. Pedersen     |   |   |
|                                          |                   |
| Title: President and  Chief Executive Officer |                   |

 

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Gary Clayton JONES.

No. COA15-569.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

June 21, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

No Error.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-13-00340-CV 

VICKIE ANN SAMARRON, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

REGENCE HEALTH NETWORK, INC., APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 222nd District Court 

Deaf Smith County, Texas 

Trial Court No. CI-12K-118, Honorable Roland D. Saul, Presiding 

 

January 14, 2014 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. 

Appellant Vickie Ann Samarron has filed a motion to dismiss her appeal, signed 

by appellant’s attorney, because the parties have resolved their issues. Without 

passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to Texas 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a) and dismiss the appeal. Having dismissed the 

appeal at appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our 

mandate will issue forthwith. 

Brian Quinn 

Chief Justice
# C_2011269EN.01004202.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2011 — Kaučuk v Commission

(Case T-44/07) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Participation in the cartel - Imputability of the offending conduct - Fines - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Attenuating circumstances)

2011/C 269/92

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kaučuk a.s. (Kralupy nad Vltavou, Czech Republic) (represented initially by: M. Powell and K. Kuik, and subsequently by M. Powell, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: M. Kellerbauer, V. Bottka and O. Weber, and subsequently by M. Kellerbauer, V. Bottka and V. Di Bucci, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment, so far as Kaučuk a.s. is concerned, of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber) or, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on Kaučuk.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber) in so far as it concerns Kaučuk a.s.; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber) in so far as it concerns Kaučuk a.s.;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.

1

---
**Exhibit 10.6(e)****FIFTH AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENTAGREEMENT**THIS FIFTH AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”) is made as of this 9th day of April, 2008to that certain AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, dated as of May 15, 2002, as amended(collectively, the “Employment Agreement”), by and between CHARLES D. FRAZER (“Employee”) and JOS.A. BANK CLOTHIERS, INC. (“Employer”).FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt and adequacy of which are herebyacknowledged, Employer and Employee, being the sole parties to the Employment Agreement, herebyamend the Employment Agreement as follows:1. Subject to earlier termination otherwise set forth in the Employment Agreement, the lastday of the Employment Period shall be January 31, 2010.2. Effective May 4, 2008, Employee’s Base Salary shall be $265,000.Except as specifically amended hereby, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force andeffect according to its terms. To the extent of any conflict between the terms of this Amendmentand the terms of the remainder of the Employment Agreement, the terms of this Amendment shallcontrol and prevail. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have those respectivemeanings attributed to them in the Employment Agreement. This Amendment shall hereafter be deemed apart of the Employment Agreement for all purposes.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first abovewritten.         JOS. A. BANK CLOTHIERS, INC.               By: /s/ David E. Ullman   /s/ Charles D. Frazer             David E. Ullman,   CHARLES D. FRAZER    Executive Vice President-Chief Financial Officer
# C_2008183EN.01000301.xml

| 19.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione — Italy) — Industria Lavorazione Carni Ovine Srl v Regione Lazio

(Case C-534/06) (1)

1

(Common agricultural policy - EAGGF - Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 866/90 - Exclusion of investments relating to the processing of products from third countries - Principle of proportionality)

(2008/C 183/04)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte Suprema di Cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Industria Lavorazione Carni Ovine Srl

Applicant:

Defendant: Regione Lazio

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte suprema di cassazione — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 866/90 of 29 March 1990 on improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural products (OJ 1990 L 91, p. 1) — Exclusion of investments in the marketing and/or processing of products from third countries — Exclusion in the case of investments which also concern products from Member States, complying with the specific programme under which the financing was obtained

Operative part of the judgment

On a proper construction of Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 866/90 of 29 March 1990 on improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural products, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, payment of financial assistance is not excluded in cases of the marketing or processing of products including products originating beyond the territory of the Community, when the specific programme for which that financial assistance was granted has been observed, in so far as products originating within the Community have been marketed or processed in the quantities provided for.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

1

---
* 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. 07-60601

Summary Calendar

NOE ADALBERTO ZUNIGA RODRIGUEZ

Petitioner

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A78 558 302

Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Noe Adalberto Zuniga Rodriguez (Zuniga), a native and citizen of

Honduras, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying his application for

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

Torture (CAT).

Zuniga testified that he was physically attacked on several occasions and

threatened that he would be killed if he did not join Mara 18, a gang that

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 16, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-60601

2

operates in Honduras and other parts of Central America. Zuniga argues that

he is entitled to withholding of removal because of his membership in a social

group that consists of young, unprotected individuals who refuse to join

organized criminal gangs such as Mara 18 and who have reported the gangs’

criminal activities to the authorities. Zuniga further contends that his

opposition to joining the gang constitutes a political opinion.

To establish that he is a member of a particular social group, Zuniga must

show that he shares a common immutable characteristic that he cannot change

or should not be required to change because it is fundamental to his individual

identity or conscience. See Mwembie v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 405, 414-15 (5th Cir.

2006). Zuniga failed to make such a showing. He similarly failed to show that

he was persecuted because of his political opinion. See Ontunez-Tursios v.

Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 351 (5th Cir. 2002).

Zuniga therefore has not established that it is more likely than not that

he would be threatened by persecution on account of either his political opinion

or his membership in a particular social group. See Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d

132, 138 (5th Cir. 2004). The BIA’s determination that Zuniga is not entitled to

withholding of removal is supported by substantial evidence and will not be

disturbed. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994).

Zuniga does not seek review of the IJ’s determination that his claim for

asylum was time barred. Zuniga has therefore waived the issue. See CalderonOntiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir. 1986).

Zuniga’s CAT claim is likewise unavailing, as he has failed to show that

he will likely be tortured under government acquiescence if he is returned to

Honduras. See Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 354 (5th Cir. 2002).

Zuniga’s petition for review is DENIED.
1300.

#### Sperling *v.*First National Bank of Waynesboro.

Complaint, from city court of Waynesboro — H. J. Fullbright, , judge pro hac vice. May 29, 1908.

Submitted October 29,

Decided November 10, 1908.

*Lawson & Scales,*for plaintiff in error.

Powell, J.

1. The evidence authorized the verdict.

'2. None of the assignments of error as to rulings upon the admission of testimony are sufficient in form to present any question for adjudication.

*Judgment affirmed.*
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 597 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 597

 To extend the special postage stamp for breast cancer research for 2 
                                 years.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 14, 2007

Mrs. Feinstein (for herself, Mrs. Hutchison, Ms. Murkowski, Mrs. Boxer, 
   Ms. Snowe, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Kyl, Mr. 
Voinovich, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Warner, 
   Mr. Salazar, Mr. Biden, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Graham, Mr. Baucus, Mr. 
   Thomas, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Burr, Mr. Brownback, and Mr. 
    Sununu) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the special postage stamp for breast cancer research for 2 
                                 years.

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

SECTION 1. 2-YEAR EXTENSION OF POSTAGE STAMP FOR BREAST CANCER 
              RESEARCH.

    Section 414(h) of title 39, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``2007'' and inserting ``2009''.
                                 <all>
```
----

----

**CONSENT  OF QUALIFIED PERSON**

I, Paul Gribble, C.Eng., FIMMM, herebyconsent to:

| a) | thepublic filing of the technical report titled ‘Bisha Mine, Eritrea, Africa, NI43-101 Technical Report’ and dated March 24, 2014,  (the “Technical Report”) byNevsun Resources Ltd.; |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| b) | theuse of any extracts from or a summary of the Technical Report in the newsrelease dated February 18, 2014 (the “News Release”); |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| c) | theuse of any extracts from or a summary of the Technical Report in the AnnualInformation Form (the “AIF”) dated March 24, 2014 of Nevsun Resources Ltd.which will be filed on SEDAR; |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| d) | theAIF which includes such extracts from the Technical Report to be included inthe Annual Report on Form 40-F (collectively, the “40-F”) of Nevsun ResourcesLtd. to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commissionpursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| e) | thereferences to my name in the AIF and 40-F as an author of the report entitled‘Bisha Mine, Eritrea, Africa, NI 43-101 Technical Report’, dated March 24, 2014. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

I certify that I have read theNews Release and AIF being filed by Nevsun Resources Ltd. and that the NewsRelease and AIF fairly and accurately represent the information in the sectionsof the Technical Report for which I am responsible.

Dated this 24th day of March,2014

“Original signed and sealed”

_______________________________

Paul Gribble, C.Eng., FIMMM

----
Marcus Antonio Dawson, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

March 23, 2016

ORDER

Petitioner filed a motion on January 12, 2015 for resentencing pursuant to Aiken v. Byars , 410 S.C. 534, 765 S.E.2d 572 (S.C. 2014). Now, therefore, pursuant to SC CONST. Art. V, § 4,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Honorable D. Garrison Hill be vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the Petitioner's Motion for Resentencing in the above-captioned matter.

Judge Hill shall at all times be vested with concurrent jurisdiction in all circuits of the state to dispose of matters relating to this case, and shall decide all matters pertaining to the Petitioner's Motion, and shall retain jurisdiction over this matter regardless of where he may be assigned to hold court, and may schedule such hearings as may be necessary at any time without regard as to whether there is a term of court scheduled.

If necessary, to resolve issues related to the appointment of counsel, a hearing shall be conducted within thirty (30) days of this order.

Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, Judge Hill shall issue a scheduling order setting forth the schedule that shall be followed in this matter, including the date of the hearing on the merits. The scheduling order may be amended as necessary.

s/Costa M. Pleicones

Costa M. Pleicones

Chief Justice