alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**EXCHANGE
      ACT RULE 15d-14(b) AND**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Eternal Energy Corp.
      (the ”Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30,
      2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the “Report”), I, Bradley M. Colby, President, Chief Executive Officer,
      Treasurer, Secretary and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
      to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to Exchange Act
      Rule 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
      document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
      that
      appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
      required by Section 906, has been provided to Eternal Energy Corp. and will
      be retained by Eternal Energy Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.





/s/Bradley
                M. ColbyBradley
                M. Colby*President,
                Chief Executive Officer, Treasurer,**Secretary
                and Chief Financial Officer**Eternal
                Energy Corp.*November
                17, 2006
CVI Q2 2014 Exhibit 10.1


Exhibit 10.1


AMENDMENT TO 
GP SERVICES AGREEMENT


THIS AMENDMENT TO GP SERVICES AGREEMENT (this "Amendment") is entered into as of June 27, 2014 by and between CVR Partners, LP, a Delaware limited partnership ("MLP"), CVR GP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("GP"), and CVR Energy, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("CVR", and collectively with MLP and GP, the "Parties" and each, a "Party").


RECITALS


The Parties entered into a GP Services Agreement effective as of November 29, 2011 (the "Agreement"), pursuant to which GP agreed to provide the GP Services to the GP Services Recipients.  The Parties desire to amend the Agreement in the manner set forth in this Amendment.


The parties agree as follows:


1.Capitalized Terms.  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings assigned to them in the Agreement.


2.Terms.  


(a)The definition of “Share-Based Compensation” contained in Section 1.01 of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety.


(b)The term “Personnel Costs” contained in Section 1.01 of the Agreement is amended and restated to read as follows:


"Personnel Costs" means all compensation costs incurred by an employer in connection with the employment by such employer of applicable personnel, including all payroll and benefits but excluding severance costs.


3.Effective Date.  Each of the amendments contemplated by this Amendment is effective as of April 1, 2014 (the "Effective Date").


4.Ratify Agreement.  Except as expressly amended hereby, the Agreement will remain unamended and in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.  The amendments provided herein will be limited precisely as drafted and will not constitute an amendment of any other term, condition or provision of the Agreement.  References in the Agreement to "Agreement", "hereof", "herein", and words of similar import are deemed to be a reference to the Agreement as amended by this Amendment.


5.Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be deemed to be an original and all of which constitute one agreement that is binding upon each of the parties, notwithstanding that all parties are not signatories to the same counterpart.











The parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above, but effective as of the Effective Date.


	
				
	CVR Partners, LP
By: CVR GP, LLC, its general partner






	CVR GP, LLC

	By:
	/s/ Mark A. Pytosh
	By:
	/s/ Susan M. Ball

	Name:
	Mark A. Pytosh
	Name:
	Susan M. Ball

	Title:
	Chief Executive Officer and President
	Title:
	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer








	
		
	CVR Energy, Inc.







	By:
	/s/ John J. Lipinski

	Name:
	John J. Lipinski

	Title:
	Chief Executive Officer and President
STATE v. Juan Carlos RODRIGUEZ

302A14-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 26, 2017

Barbara S. Blackman, John F. Carella, Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Assistant Appellate Defenders, for Rodriguez, Juan Carlos.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jennifer Martin, Patrick B. Weede, Michael Silver, Assistant District Attorneys, Mary Carla Babb, Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney Generals, James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th of September 2017 by State of NC in the Alternative for Leave to File State's Supplemental Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th of September 2017."
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4181 

To appropriate funds for carrying out certain provisions of the Public Health 

Service Act relating to emergency care and trauma services. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 6, 2014 

Mr. RUSH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Appropriations 

A BILL 

To appropriate funds for carrying out certain provisions of 

the Public Health Service Act relating to emergency care 

and trauma services. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Trauma Relief Access 

5 for Urgent Medical Assistance of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FUNDING FOR EMERGENCY CARE AND TRAUMA 

7 SERVICES. 

8 Out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise ap9 propriated, there are hereby appropriated for each of fiscal 

10 years 2014 through 2018 the following sums: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4181 IH

1 (1) $24,000,000 for carrying out parts A 

2 through C of title XII of the Public Health Service 

3 Act (42 U.S.C. 300d et seq.; relating to regional sys4 tems for emergency care). 

5 (2) $100,000,000 for carrying out part D of 

6 title XII of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 

7 300d–41 et seq.; relating to trauma care centers). 

8 (3) $100,000,000 for carrying out part H of 

9 title XII of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 

10 300d–81 et seq.; relating to trauma service avail11 ability). 

12 (4) $20,000,000 for carrying out section 498D 

13 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g– 

14 4; relating to emergency medicine research). 

15 (5) $30,400,000 for carrying out section 1910 

16 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300w– 

17 9; relating to children’s emergency medical services 

18 demonstration grants). 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Cameron Lee HINTON v. Donnie HARRISON ; Wake County Detention Center

No. 403P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 28, 2017

Mr. Cameron Lee Hinton, for Hinton, Cameron Lee

Mr. Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, for Harrison, Donnie, et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the application filed by Petitioner on the 27th of November 2017 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Wake County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of November 2017."
STATE of North Carolina v. Marcus Marcel SMITH

No. 290A17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 7, 2017

Jason C. Yoder, Attorney at Law, for Smith, Marcus Marcel.

Adrian Dellinger, Associate Attorney General, Teresa M. Postell, Assistant Attorney General, James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 29th of September 2017 by Defendant 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of December 2017."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
STATE v. Joe Robert REYNOLDS

155P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 19, 2017

Amanda S. Zimmer, Assistant Appellate Defender, Southern Pines, for Reynolds, Joe Robert.

William P. Hart, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, C. Ricky Bowman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th of May 2017 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 19th of May 2017."
STATE of North Carolina, v. Deandreal Maurice CANNON, Defendant, and Terrence C. Rushing, Bail Agent, and Agent Associates Insurance, L.L.C., Surety.

No. COA17-17

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 3, 2017

NO ERROR.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4430 

To amend the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act to ensure that certain 

facilities continue to be treated as alcohol-related facilities, notwithstanding the distribution of spent grains resulting from the production 

of alcoholic beverages. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 8, 2014 

Mr. WOMACK (for himself, Mr. WELCH, Ms. PINGREE of Maine, and Mr. 

GARDNER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act to ensure 

that certain facilities continue to be treated as alcoholrelated facilities, notwithstanding the distribution of 

spent grains resulting from the production of alcoholic 

beverages. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting the Sustain5 able Use of Spent Grains Act of 2014’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4430 IH

1 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY OF EXEMPTION TO ALCOHOL-RE2 LATED FACILITIES THAT DISTRIBUTE SPENT 

3 GRAINS. 

4 Section 116 of the FDA Food Safety Modernization 

5 Act (21 U.S.C. 2206) is amended— 

6 (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as sub7 section (d); 

8 (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the fol9 lowing: 

10 ‘‘(c) SPENT GRAINS.—Notwithstanding subsection 

11 (b), the exemption in subsection (a) shall not cease to 

12 apply to a facility on the basis of such facility distributing, 

13 for use as food for animals, spent grains resulting from 

14 the facility’s production of alcoholic beverages.’’; and 

15 (3) in subsection (d), as redesignated, by strik16 ing ‘‘Except as provided in subsections (a) and (b)’’ 

17 and inserting ‘‘Except as provided in subsections 

18 (a), (b), and (c)’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 00-4025 MATTHEW BRYAN MARSHBURN, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CR-99-192, CR-99-193) Submitted: June 20, 2000 Decided: August 9, 2000 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, John W. Stone, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM:Matthew Bryan Marshburn pled guilty to two counts of bank robbery, see 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a) (West Supp. 2000), and was sentenced to a term of sixty-six months imprisonment for both offenses. He appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court erred in finding that he had made a threat of death during one or both of the robberies, and in enhancing his sentence pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B3.1(b)(2)(B) (1998). We affirm. The district court's finding that a threat of death was made is reviewed de novo. See United States v. Franks , 183 F.3d 335, 337 (4th Cir. 1999). The commentary to § 2B3.1 currently does not require an express threat of death. The enhancement applies if thedefendant "engaged in conduct that would instill in a reasonable person, who is a victim of the offense, a fear of death." USSG § 2B3.1, comment. (n.6). In Franks , this court held that "the combination of the statements`I have a gun' and `I have nothing to lose' can only be meant to indicate that [the defendant] is both armed and prepared to use his gun." Id. at 338. Marshburn argues that his statements were merely intimidating, and that the district court's ruling blurs the line between a fear for safety and a fear of death. However, Franks equated a fear ofbeing shot with a fear of death, not merely a fear for safety. Marshburn's warnings against sudden moves and, in the first note, his implied threat that someone could be hurt if his demands were notmet, combined with the statement that he had a gun, would put a reasonable person in fear of being shot and, thus, in fear of death. Therefore, we find that the district court did not err finding that the enhancement was warranted.Accordingly, we affirm the sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 2in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3 3
EXHIBIT 32
                                      ==========




     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT






The certification set forth below is being furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b)
or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and with Section
1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code. Frederick Fisher,
the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Principal
Accounting Officer of Golden Hope Resources Corp. hereby certifies that:


1. the Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Golden Hope Resources Corp.


                                          GOLDEN HOPE RESOURCES CORP.,
                                          Registrant

Dated: May 15, 2005                      /s/ Frederick Fisher
                                          ---------------------------------
                                          By: Frederick Fisher, President,
                                              Chief Executive Officer,
                                              Treasuer, Chief Financial
                                              Officer, Principal Accounting
                                              Officer and Director
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

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

______________________

In re : MARK C. JACKSON,

Petitioner

______________________

2020

- 102

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 19

- 5406, Judge Margaret C. Bartley.

______________________

ON PETITION

______________________

P ER C URIAM

.
O R D E R

Before the court is Mark C. Jackson ’s “Petition for Extraordinary Relief,” which the court construes as seeking

mandamus relief. Mr. Jackson has also submit ted a “notice of interlocutory appeal.”

To prevail on a mandamus petition, a party must show: (1) it has a clear legal right to relief; (2) there are no adequate alternative legal channels through which it may obtain that relief; and (3) the grant of mandamus is appropriate under the circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of Columbia , 542 U.S. 367, 380

– 81 Case: 20-102 Document: 5-1 Page: 1 Filed: 01/29/2020IN RE JACKSON 2

(2004); Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court for the N. Dist. of Cal. , 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976).

Among other things, Mr. Jackson states in his petition

that he seeks “the necessary writs to enforce the judgment”in connection with a decision of the Board of Veterans Appeals, No. 04

- 31 819A, 2014 WL 5094720 (Aug. 4, 2014)

, and has a petition for an extraordinary writ pending in the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims “but,

to date no action has been take n by the court on the petition.” Mr. Jackson identifies Veterans C ourt Docket No.

2019

- 5406. O n November 21, 2019, the Veterans Court acted on Mr. Jackson’s petition in that case. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(d), this court willtransmit to the Veterans Court Mr. Jackson’s notice of appeal as havin g been timely filed. Mr. Jackson thus has an alternative means by which to pursue his relief.

Mr. Jackson also raises allegations against numerous parties, including the S tate of Florida, concerning “a government al racketeering enterprise conspiracy or retaliatory

, discriminatory prohibited personnel practice or unwarranted personnel action” involving, among other things, court corruption, his driver’s license suspension, his brother’s murder, and his attendance at West Virginia University. Just as thi s court previously concluded that Mr.Jackson’s earlier petitions raising essentially the same allegations failed to establish a clear and indisputable right to relief, s ee, e.g., Jackson v. United States , 612 F. App’x 997 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Jackson v. Shin seki , 421 F. App’x 957 (Fed. Cir. 2011) , we do the same here.

Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

(1) Mr. Jackson’s petition is denied.

(2) T his court transmits ECF No. 4 , to the Clerk of the

Veterans Court to be considered a notice of appeal in Jackson v. Wilkie , No. 19

- 5406

, filed on December 17, 2019. Case: 20-102 Document: 5-1 Page: 2 Filed: 01/29/2020IN RE JACKSON 3

F OR THE C OURT

January 29 , 2020 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Date Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

s31 Case: 20-102 Document: 5-1 Page: 3 Filed: 01/29/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-11736

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JULIO CESAR ZAVALA-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:16-CR-80-2

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Julio Cesar Zavala-Rodriguez has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Zavala-Rodriguez has filed a response. The record is not 

sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of ZavalaRodriguez’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 18, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-11736 Document: 00514121460 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2017
No. 16-11736

2

consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. 

Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Zavala-Rodriguez’s response. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, the 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.

 Case: 16-11736 Document: 00514121460 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2017
#### CITY OF WEBSTER GROVES, Respondent, v. Elizabeth B. KELLETT, Appellant.

No. ED 81649.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

May 13, 2003.

Motions for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 3, 2003.

Application for Transfer Denied Aug. 26, 2003.

Elizabeth B. Kellett, St. Louis, pro se.

Deborah P. Wilkins, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.

Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J„ and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Elizabeth B. Kellett (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals from the judgment of conviction, entered pursuant to a bench trial, of a municipal ordinance of the City of Webster Groves (hereinafter, “the City”). Appellant was found guilty of having too many vehicles parked at her residence, WebsteR Groves, Mo.Code Section 70.054 (1998). The trial court entered judgment and assessed Appellant a fine of $1000.

Appellant believes the trial court made numerous errors. She claims *inter alia*
      *460the City enacted its ordinance to harass her and that it was too vague to be enforced; she was innocent; the City failed to prove its case; the trial court was biased; the trial court failed to recognize perjury; under the “poisoned tree doctrine,” the exclusionary rule should apply to evidence presented by the City; and her right to maintain the vehicles on her property was vested.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b); Rule 84.16(b).
STATE of North Carolina v. Julian L. ROBINSON

No. COA17-971

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 20, 2018

AFFIRMED.
LOCKLEAR v. CUMMINGS, et al.

202A17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 12, 2017

Walter L. Hart, IV, Attorney at Law, for Locklear, Marjorie C.

David D. Ward, Katherine Hilkey-Boyatt, Attorneys at Law, Raleigh, Matthew Gambale, Wilmington, Jaye E. Bingham-Hinch, Attorney at Law, for Cummings, Matthew S. (M.D.), et al.

Robert A. Ford, Demetrius Worley Berry, Attorneys at Law, Greensboro, for Southeastern Regional Medical Center.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th of December 2017 by H. Asby Fulmer III for Admission Pro Hac Vice:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 12th of December 2017."