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

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Quarterly Report of Visual Management Systems, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Jason Gonzalez, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
my knowledge:

(1)     the
Report fully complies with the requirements of §13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §78m or 78o(d), and,

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

|                      |     |                          | 
|--------------------- | --- | ------------------------ | 
|Date: August 19, 2009 | By: | /s/ Jason
 Gonzalez      | 
|                      |     |                          | 
|                      |     | Jason
 Gonzalez          | 
|                      |     | Chief
 Executive Officer | 

10

---
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**ANSWERS CORPORATION**

**FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2008**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

I am the Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Answers Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”). I amdelivering this certificate in connection with the Form 10-Q of theCompany for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 and filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission (“Form 10-Q”).

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Ihereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Form 10-Q fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-Qfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Date: November 6,  2008 |                      |
|------------------------------|---------------------------|
|                         |                      |
|                         | /s/ ROBERT S. ROSENSCHEIN |
|                         |                      |
|                         | Robert S. Rosenschein     |
|                         | Chief Executive Officer   |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-8139

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DARIUS BELLE, a/k/a Dee,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District 

Judge. (3:06-cr-00748-JFA-2; 3:11-cv-03520-JFA)

Submitted: May 23, 2013 Decided: May 28, 2013

Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darius Belle, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Jimmie 

Ewing, Julius Ness Richardson, Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant 

United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Darius Belle seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Belle has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Phyllis V. PARSONS v. Donald Joe PARSONS, Jr., individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Donald Joe Parsons

No. 97P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2018

John M. Logsdon, Attorney at Law, North Wilkesboro, for Parsons, Phyllis V.

John G. Vannoy, Jr., North Wilkesboro, Jay Vannoy, Daniel S. Johnson, Winston-Salem, Attorneys at Law, for Parsons, Donald Joe (Jr.) (Ind. & Adm.)

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 2nd of April 2018 by Plaintiff 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 14th of August 2018."
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mewbourne Energy Partners 04-A, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the nine months ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, in the capacity as indicated below and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended, and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:                 November 16, 2009



/s/ J. Roe
BuckleyJ. Roe BuckleyExecutive Vice PresidentChief Financial OfficerMewbourne Development Corporation,Managing General Partner of the Registrant
Tammy L. BYBEE, Plaintiff, v. ISLAND HAVEN, INC.; Quality Homes of Currituck LLC ; and Justin Matthew Old, Defendants.

No. COA17-859

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 7, 2018

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-79074, 33-79142, 33-95774, 33-95780, 333-
3402, and 33-57086) of MRO Software, Inc. of our report dated October 31, 2001,
except for the information described in Note P, as to which the date is
December 20, 2001 relating to the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
December 28, 2001

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 67
Paula SAUNDERS, Plaintiff v. HULL PROPERTY GROUP, LLC and Blue Ridge Mall, LLC, Defendants

No. COA17-1115

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 20, 2018

DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.
STATE v. WHITFIELD & BANNER

282P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 31, 2018

Jillian C. Katz, Assistant Appellant Defender, for Whitfield, Christopher Jamme.

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender.

Leslie C. Rawls, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Banner, Corey Levi.

Jonathan P. Babb, Special Counsel to Attorney General, L. Michael Dodd, Special Deputy Attorney General, Roxann L. Vaneekhoven, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th of August 2018 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:
#### Anna K. Briggs Soreny, and Ernest Soreny, her Husband, *Appellants,*v. S. J. Pickett, *Appellee.*

Division B.

Decision Filed January 16, 1928.

*Lloyd Z. Morgan*and *Richard P. Bentley,*for Appellants ;

No appearance for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4567 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to broaden the special rules 

for certain governmental plans under section 105(j) to include plans 

established by political subdivisions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 6, 2014 

Mr. REICHERT (for himself and Mr. BLUMENAUER) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to broaden 

the special rules for certain governmental plans under 

section 105(j) to include plans established by political 

subdivisions. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF APPLICATION OF SPECIAL 

4 RULES FOR CERTAIN GOVERNMENTAL PLANS 

5 TO INCLUDE PLANS ESTABLISHED BY POLIT6 ICAL SUBDIVISIONS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 105(j)(2) of the Internal 

8 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4567 IH

1 (1) by inserting ‘‘or established by or on behalf 

2 of a State or political subdivision thereof’’ after 

3 ‘‘public retirement system’’, and 

4 (2) by inserting ‘‘or 501(c)(9)’’ after ‘‘section 

5 115’’ in subparagraph (B) thereof. 

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

7 this section shall apply to payments after the date of the 

8 enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.3

                GreenPoint Manufactured Housing Contract Trust
                           Pass Through Certificates
                                 Series 1999-1
                   January 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                Class A-1          Class A-2        Class A-3        Class A-4         Class A-5
                                              --------------    --------------    -------------    -------------     --------------
<S>                                           <C>               <C>               <C>              <C>                <C>
1999 Distribution Allocable to Principal       40,710,177.09              0.00             0.00             0.00               0.00
1999 Distributions Allocable to Interest        6,736,634.17      6,914,004.13     5,096,758.37     4,406,875.00      12,204,343.14
12/31/99 Remaining Principal Balance          102,789,822.91    125,500,000.00    91,000,000.00    75,000,000.00     196,659,215.00
</TABLE>

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Number and aggregate remaining principal balance of Contracts with payments delinquent:
   <S>                 <C>             <C>
   Days Delinquent     Number          Aggregate Remaining Principal Balance
   ---------------     ------          -------------------------------------
       31 - 59          393                        13,912,460.07
       60 - 89          123                         5,076,476.74
      90 or more        133                         5,187,842.97
</TABLE>

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                                                                          <C>
Aggregate amount of servicing fees and expenses payable out of the trust for 1999:            5,640,300.44

The number of contracts that were repurchased or replaced during 1999                                    0

1999 Aggregate Principal Balance of All Contracts repossessed or foreclosed upon             24,163,130.81

The balance in the Reserve Account as of 12/31/99                                                     0.00

1999 Cumulative Realized Losses                                                               6,964,003.25

The amount of any outstanding Monthly Advance Amount as of 12/31/99                           1,075,209.31

1999 amounts deposited to Reserve Account                                                             0.00

The pool scheduled principal balance, expressed as a percentage                                 93.5550411%
     of the Cut-Off Date pool principal balance

The number of Manufactured Homes Currently held by the Servicer due to Repossessions                   284
    and the aggregate principal balance of the related defaulted Contracts                   10,501,172.83
</TABLE>
coyote32.htm










Exhibit 32


 


Certification of Principal Executive and 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 Quarterly Report of Coyote Resources, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Guy Martin, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.







 


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Coyote Resources, Inc., and will be retained by Coyote Resources, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


 








	  	  	  	  	  
	
/s/ Guy Martin

	  	  	  	  
	
Guy Martin

	  	  	  	  
	
Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer

	  	  	  	  
	
May 15, 2013   

	  	  	  	  







 


1
# C_2011269EN.01004102.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/41

---

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

(Case T-39/07) (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 - Imputability of the offending conduct - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Aggravating circumstances)

2011/C 269/90

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ENI SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G.M. Roberti and I. Perego, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, G. Conte and V. Bottka, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment, so far as ENI SpA 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 ENI.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 2(c) 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) in so far as it sets the amount of the fine imposed on ENI SpA at EUR 272,25 million; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 2(c) 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) in so far as it sets the amount of the fine imposed on ENI SpA at EUR 272,25 million;

| 2. | Sets the amount of the fine imposed on ENI at EUR 181,5 million; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sets the amount of the fine imposed on ENI at EUR 181,5 million;

| 3. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.

1

---
EXHIBIT 21





SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT





Valley Bank (“Bank”) is a subsidiary of the registrant, Valley Financial Corporation.  Valley Financial Corporation owns 100% of the Common Stock of the Bank.  Valley Financial Corporation also owns 100% of Valley Financial (VA) Statutory Trust I, Valley Financial (VA) Statutory Trust II, and Valley Financial Statutory Trust III.  VB Investments, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bank.  Valley Wealth Management Services, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bank.  VB Land, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bank. Ivy View, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bank.  Each of the above entities was incorporated or organized in Virginia.
#### Roger PARKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D02-4554.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 6, 2003.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Lance M. Day, Judge.

Appellant, pro se.

Charlie Crist, Attorney General, and Janelle C. Gillaspie, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The supporting documents do not conclusively rebut his allegations in Issues I and II, respectively, that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to object when a person was seated on the jury who knew the victim, and by fading to object when the state repeatedly referred to evidence from appellant’s first trial that had been barred from the instant trial. The court attached the transcript of voir dire from appellant’s first trial rather than his second, and did not address the second argument in the final order.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

WOLF, C.J., ERVIN and BENTON, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4602 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4602

To change the tax status of virtual currencies from property to foreign 
                                currency

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2014

 Mr. Stockman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To change the tax status of virtual currencies from property to foreign 
                                currency

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Virtual Currency Tax Reform Act''.

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

    Congress finds that classifying virtual currencies as property 
subjects users to capital gains tax on any transaction using the 
virtual currency based on any gain or loss relative to the change in 
the virtual currency's value from the time of purchase.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

    ``Virtual currency'' is a digital representation of value that 
functions as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and/or a store of 
value.

SEC. 4. GENERAL AUTHORIZATION.

    The Internal Revenue Service shall treat virtual currencies as a 
foreign currency for Federal tax purposes.

SEC. 5. MORATORIUM.

            (1) For a period of five years following the date of the 
        enactment of this Act, the Federal Government shall not impose, 
        assess, collect, or attempt to collect capital gains tax on 
        virtual currencies.
            (2) Nothing in this Act shall prevent, impair or impede the 
        operation of any government agency, authority, or 
        instrumentality, whether of the Federal Government or of any 
        State or political subdivision thereof, to enforce currently 
        existing criminal, civil, or taxation statutes and regulations.

SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The provisions of this Act shall take effect at the beginning of 
the fiscal year following enactment.
                                 <all>
```