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 RG Global Lifestyles, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended December 31, 2007, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      I, Grant King, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2001, that:





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.





Dated:
      February 19, 2008




/s/
                Grant KingGrant
                KingChief
                Executive Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. Otho Cornelius RANKIN, Jr.

No. COA15-623.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Feb. 16, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company.  The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated.  The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors.  Comments must be received not later than October 4, 2005.

**A.  Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta**                     (Andre Anderson, Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30303:                

*1.  John Joseph Mullins, Jacob Mullins, and Angelia M. Mullins*, Cullman, Alabama; to acquire voting shares of FCB Bancshares, Inc., Cullman, Alabama, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Premier Bank of the South, Good Hope, Alabama.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 15, 2005.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 05-18696 Filed 9-19-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
1009.

#### Southern Express Co. v. Hunnicutt & Turner.

Hill, C. J.

1. Suit on account, for materials furnished and work done, may be maintained although the agreement whereon the materials were furnished or the work was done be evidenced by a written contract. *Chapman*v. *Conwell,*1 *Ga. App.*212 (58 S. E. 137) ; *Sparks Improvement Co.*v. *Jones,*4 *Ga. App.*62 (60 S. E. 810) ; *Johnson*v. *Quinn,*52 *Ga.*485; *Tumlin*v. *Bass Furnace Co.,*93 *Ga.*599 (20 S. E. 44). This is especially true in a justice’s court, where technical pleading is not required. *Ga. So. Ry. Co.*v. *Barfield,*1 *Ga. App.*203 (58 S. E. 236) ; *Southern Express Co.*v. *Briggs,*1 *Ga. App.*294 (57 S. E. 1066).

O. In a certiorari proceeding, the court should not dispose of the main case on the merits while a traverse of the magistrate’s return is pending. *Phillips*v. *Atlanta,*78 *Ga.*773 (3 S. E. 431). But where the traverse has been submitted to a jury and a verdict rendered against the traverse, and no motion for a new trial has been made and no *263supersedeas of the verdict and judgment applied, for, it is not error for the court to hear the certiorari upon its merits and render judgment thereon, notwithstanding the fact that when the certiorari was heard, and before the final judgment was rendered, the time for filing the motion for new trial had not expired, and notice of an intention to file the motion was given to the court. The judgment rendered on. the certiorari is subject to be set aside, if a new trial should be subsequently granted and the traverse sustained. *Judgment affirmed.*

Certiorari, from Fulton superior court — Judge Pendleton. December 16, 1907.

Argued March 13,

Decided December 8, 1908.

*Philip H. Alston,*for plaintiff in error.

*Edgar Latham,*contra.
Bruns v. Bryant, et al.

282P16-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016.

Ms. Jenny Bruns, Pro Se.

Mr. Joseph Finarelli, Mr. Thomas M. Woodward, Special Deputy Attorney Generals, For State of North Carolina, et al.

Mr. John I. Malone, Jr., Attorney at Law, For USAA.

Mr. Philip H. Cheatwood, Attorney at Law, For Bryant, Dalton (Jr.)

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 13th of September 2016 by Plaintiff to Reconsider Petition for Discretionary Review Under N.C.G.S. 7A-31 (a) and Writ of Mandamus Under Rule 22:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
A-rrORNlcY C.RNRRAII January 9, 1968 

Miss Edna Cisneros Opinion No; M-184 

county Attorney 

Willacy County 

Courthouse 

Raymondville, Texas 

Dear Miss Cisneros: 

Re: Fees to be collected in 

Felony and Misdemeanor 

Cases 

Your request for an opinion poses the following 

questions: 

1. What fees are peace officers entitled to 

collect in misdemeanor cases and felony 

cases? 

2. What fees is the District Clerk entitled 

to collect, in felony cases? 

Fees allowed the sheriff and other peace officers in 

misdemeanor cases are governed by the provisions of:Article 

53.01, Vernon's Code of Criminal Procedure. Attorney General's 

Opinions No. C-605 (19661, C-688 (1966), C-596 (1966) .and C-542 

(1965). Article 1029, Vernon's Code of Criminal Procedure, 

applicable to Willacy County, prescribes the fees allowed the 

sheriff and constables in felony cases and Article 1064, Vernon's 

Code of ,Criminal Procedure, as amended by House Bill No. 79 

(Acts 60th Leg., 1967, ch. 743, p. 20101, prescribes the fees 

allowed District and County Clerks in criminal cases. Attorney 

General's Opinion No. M-168 (1967). 

It was held in Attorney General's Opinion No. M-168 

that House Bill No. 79 (Acts 60th Leg., 1967, ch. 743, p. 2010) 

merely changed the amount of fees payable to District and 

County Clerks in criminal cases and re-affirmed Attorney General's 

Opinion No. W-820 (1960). 

You are, therefore, advised in answer to your first 

question that fees to be collected by peace officers in misdemeanor cases are governed by the provisions of Article 53.01, 

Vernon's Code of Criminal Procedure, and fees in felony cases are 

those prescribed in Article 1029, Vernon's Code of Criminal PrOcedure. In answer to your second question, you are advised that 

fees allowed the District Clerk are those fees set out in Article 

1064, Vernon's Code of Criminal Procedure. 

-880. 
Miss Edna Cisneros, page 2, (M-184) 

We are enclosing with this opinion Attorney General's 

Opinions No. W-820 (1960), C-542 (1965), C-596 (19661, C-605 

(1966), C-6,8,8 (1966) and M-168 (1967). 

SUMMARY 

Fees to be collected by peace officers 

in misdemeanor cases are governed by the pr,ovisions of Article 53.01, Vernon's Code of 

Criminal Procedure, and fees in felony cases 

are those prescribed in Article 1029, Vernon's 

Code of Criminal Procedure. Fees allowed the 

District Clerk are those fees set out in 

Article 1064, Vernon'sCode of Criminal Procedure. 

L 

truly yours, 

General of Texas 

Prepared by John Reeves 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Hawthorne Phillips, Chairman 

Kerns Taylor, Co-Chairman 

W. V. Geppert 

Robert Owen 

Bill Craig 

Jo Betsy Lewallen 

STAFF LEGAL ASSISTANT 

A. J. Carubbi, Jr. 

-881-
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00265-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF B.L.S., 

H.C.S., AND B.G.S., CHILDREN

------------

FROM THE 235TH DISTRICT COURT OF COOKE COUNTY

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

------------

On July 31, 2013, and August 26, 2013, we notified appellant in 

accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this 

appeal unless the $175 filing fee was paid. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). 

Appellant has not paid the $175 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

Because appellant failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of 

appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court’s order of August 28, 2007,2

we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.

DELIVERED: September 19, 2013

 

2See Supreme Court of Tex., Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil 

Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial 

Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 07-9138 (Aug. 28, 2007) (listing 

fees in courts of appeals).
MEMORANDUM OPINION 

No. 04-08-00345-CV 

UVALDE COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY d/b/a Uvalde Memorial Hospital, 

Appellant 

v. 

Peggy GARCIA as next Friend of Elvira Mirelez and Amistad Nursing Home, Inc., 

Appellees 

From the 38th Judicial District Court, Uvalde County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 07-03-25,716-CV 

Honorable Henry G. Schuble, Judge Presiding 

PER CURIAM 

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice 

 Rebecca Simmons, Justice 

 Steven C. Hilbig, Justice 

Delivered and Filed: October 1, 2008 

DSIMISSED 

Appellant has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion contains a 

certificate of service to appellees, who have not opposed the motion. We, therefore, grant the 

motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). 

PER CURIAM
* 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. 07-10504

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

WILLIAM RAY HERRERA

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:07-CV-11

USDC No. 6:05-CR-56-2

Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

William Ray Herrera, federal prisoner # 34154-144, was convicted of one

charge of possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute and was

sentenced to serve 108 months in prison and a three year term of supervised

release. Herrera filed the instant 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to challenge his

conviction and sentence, and he moved this courtfor a certificate of appealability

(COA) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his § 2255 motion as untimely.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 16, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-10504

2

Herrera was granted a COA on the issue whether the district court erred by

determining that Herrera’s § 2255 motion was untimely, and this appeal ensued.

Herrera argues that his § 2255 motion was timely filed and that the

district court improperly calculated the time he had to take a direct appeal. The

Government agrees that the district court’s timeliness calculations were flawed

but contends that this court may affirm the district court’s denial of § 2255 relief

on the basis that Herrera’s claims lack merit.

We agree that the district court erred by determining that Herrera’s

§ 2255 motion was untimely. When conducting its timeliness analysis, the

district court determined that Herrera had ten calendar days, rather than ten

working days, to file his notice of appeal. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(1)(A),

26(a)(1),(2). We conclude that Herrera’s § 2255 motion was timely filed.

We may affirm the denial of Herrera’s § 2255 motion on any basis

supported by the record. See Scott v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 260, 262 (5th Cir. 2000);

Aeby v. United States, 409 F.2d 1, 2 (5th Cir. 1969). Nevertheless, the record is

not sufficiently developed to permit consideration of Herrera’s claims on the

merits. Consequently, the judgment of the district court is VACATED, and this

case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
**Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 May 2010 – Outokumpu and Luvata v Commission**

**(Case T-20/05)**

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Copper plumbing tube industry – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Fines – Size of the relevant market – Aggravating circumstance – Repeat infringement

1.                     *Procedure – Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings – Conditions (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)
and 48(2)) (see paras 57-58)*

2.                     *Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Aggravating circumstances – Repeat
infringement (Art. 65 CS; Art. 81 EC; Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2); Commission Communication 98/C 9/03, para. 2) (see
paras 61-63)*

3.                     *Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Aggravating circumstances – Repeat
infringement (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2); Commission Communication 98/C 9/03, para. 2) (see paras 69-70)*

4.                     *Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Size of the product market in question
– To be taken into consideration (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2)) (see para. 77)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for cancellation or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants under Article 2(j) of Commission Decision C(2004) 2826 of 3 September 2004 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.069 – Copper plumbing tubes). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Outokumpu Oyj and Luvata Oy to pay the costs. |
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 June 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: August 4, 2016 | By:    | /S/ MANUEL A. HENRIQUEZ

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

(Principal Executive Officer) |
Exhibit
32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 
 In
connection with the Amended Quarterly Report of Vanguard Minerals Corporation
(the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended September 30, 2007, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report"), I, Vladimir
Fedyunin , President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 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.
              To
      my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
      all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
      of the Company as of and for the period covered by the
    Report.
 
  /s/ Vladimir
Fedyunin
 Vladimir
Fedyunin
 Chief
Executive Officer
 Duly
Authorized Officer and Principal
 Financial
and Accounting Officer
 
 Date:April 21,
2008
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3765 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 511
113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3765

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 18, 2014

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                             July 31, 2014

               Reported by Mr. Carper, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 198 Baker Street in Corning, New York, as the ``Specialist Ryan P. 
                     Jayne Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. SPECIALIST RYAN P. JAYNE POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 198 Baker Street in Corning, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Specialist Ryan P. Jayne Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Specialist 
Ryan P. Jayne Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 511

113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3765

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 198 Baker Street in Corning, New York, as the ``Specialist Ryan P. 
                     Jayne Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 31, 2014

                       Reported without amendment
```
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-20284 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. MICHAEL D. GOODSON, also known as Mike Goodson, Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:06-CR-98-1
Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Michael D. G oodson, federal prisoner # 02492-088, was convicted in 2007 of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, three counts of mail fraud, and five counts of wire fraud, and h e is serving a 293-month sentence. He now appeals the district court’s d enial of his motion for a new trial un d er Rule 33 of the Federal R ule s of Criminal Procedure. We review the denial of his m otion for abuse of discretion. See United States v. T urner , 6 74 F.3d 420, 429 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 302 (2012). U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Aug ust 29, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-20284 Document: 00512357549 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/29/2013No. 12-20284

A district court judge opined in an attorney admissions proceeding in 2011 that Goodson’s paid trial counsel had been un f a i r l y prevented from practicing before the district court in 2 0 0 7

. Goodson c ontends that t his 2011 decision constitutes newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial. To f o r m t h e basis for a new trial, newly discovered evidence must be, among other things, material to the g uilt or i nnocence of t he defendant except when the n ewly discovered evidence is evidence of j ury tampering o r a Brady 1 violation. United States v. Medina , 118 F.3d 371, 3 73 (5th Cir. 1 997). The judge’s r ecommendation in an admissions proceeding is not m aterial to Goodson’s guilt or innocence, nor is it evidence of j ury t a m p e r i n g o r a Brady violation. Consequently, the district court did n ot abuse its discretion when it denied Goodson’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial. AFFIRMED.

1 Bra dy v . M

a ryl a nd , 373 U

. S. 83, 86- 87 ( 1963)

. 2 Case: 12-20284 Document: 00512357549 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/29/2013
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

JAMES J. CHAPMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

2010-5140

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in Case No. 09-CV-440, Judge Edward J. Damich.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

R AYMOND J. T ONEY , The Law Office of Raymond J.Toney, of Woodland, California, argued for plaintiffappellant.

K ENNETH D. W OODROW , Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were T ONY
W EST , Assistant Attorney General, J EANNE E. D AVIDSON

, Director, and S TEVEN J. G ILLINGHAM , Assistant Director.

______________________T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (N EWMAN

, L OURIE , and M OORE

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

August 18, 2011 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly
Clerk