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

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

In connection
with the Quarterly Report of Mewbourne Energy Partners 05-A, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2006, 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.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |                                  
|----------------------- |  | ---------------------------------
|                        |  | /s/ Curtis W. Mewbourne          
|                        |  | Name: Curtis W. Mewbourne        
|Date: November 14, 2006 |  | Title: Chief Executive Officer   
|                        |  | Mewbourne Development Corporation



18
#### Jason HAMILTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D03-2034.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 6, 2003.

Jason Hamilton, Raiford, pro se.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Laura Fisher Zibura, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Jason Hamilton appeals an order summarily denying his motion for post-conviction relief as untimely. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b), provides that such motion must be filed within “two years after the judgment and sentence become final.” Appellant’s judgment and sentence became final upon issuance of this court’s April 16, 2001, mandate from the second appeal. Therefore, the motion filed in March 2003, was timely. *Bostic v. State,*683 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); *Jones v. State,*602 So.2d 606 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

We reverse the order and remand the cause for further proceedings.

POLEN, TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 20, 2013

NO. 03-12-00178-CR

Daniel Tovar, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON AND ROSE

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being 

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the district court’s 

judgment: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the judgment 

of the district court is in all things affirmed; and it appearing that the appellant is indigent and 

unable to pay costs, that no adjudication as to costs is made; and that this decision be certified

below for observance.
EX-4.3



 Exhibit 4.3 
 AUTHORIZING RESOLUTIONS 
 May 8, 2013 

 
  
 These Authorizing Resolutions relate to $100,000,000 aggregate principal amount of additional 4.375% Senior Notes due 2023 (the “Additional Notes”) to be issued in accordance with the
indenture dated as of February 7, 2012 (as amended and supplemented, the “Indenture”) among Toll Brothers Finance Corp. (the “Issuer”), Toll Brothers, Inc. (the “Company”) and the other
Guarantors and The Bank of New York Mellon, as trustee (the “Trustee”), as amended and supplemented by the authorizing resolutions relating to the existing $300,000,000 aggregate principal amount of 4.375% Senior Notes due 2023 (the
“Authorizing Resolutions for the Existing Notes”). Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein but used below shall have the meanings given to them in the Indenture. 

Pursuant to Section 2.01 of the Indenture and Paragraph 2 of the Authorizing Resolutions for the Existing Notes, the aggregate
principal amount at maturity of additional 4.375% Senior Notes which shall be authenticated and delivered under the Indenture, shall be $100,000,000 (except for any Notes authenticated and delivered upon registration of the transfer of, or in
exchange for, or in lieu of other Notes pursuant to the terms of the Indenture). The terms of the Additional Notes shall be the same as those set forth in the Authorizing Resolutions for the Existing Notes.
The COMMITTEE TO ELECT DAN FOREST, a Political Committee v. EMPLOYEES POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (EMPAC)

No. 231A18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 5, 2018

David Steven Walker, II, Attorney at Law, for The Committee To Elect Dan Forest

C. Amanda Martin, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Employees Political Action Committee (EMPAC)

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Defendant on the 24th of July 2018 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of December 2018."
Table of Contents

EXHIBIT 13.1

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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Telemig Celular Participações
S.A. (the Company), does hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained
in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |                               
| | ------------------------------
| | Dated: June 29, 2007.         
| |                               
| | By: /s/ Oscar Thompson        
| | Name: Oscar Thompson          
| | Title: Chief Executive Officer

---

#####
#### In the Matter of Board of Architectural Review and Historic Preservation of the Village of Southampton, Appellant, v Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Southampton, Respondent. Hazel S. Saunders et al., Intervenors-Appellants; Payton Lane Properties, Inc., et al., Intervenors-Respondents.

[719 NYS2d 663]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Southampton dated March 26, 1998, which overruled a determination of the Board of Architectural Review and Historic Preservation of the Village of Southampton dated January 12, 1998, disapproving plans for a project known as the Payton Lane Nursing Home, the appeals are from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), entered October 21, 1999, which granted the motion of Payton Lane Properties, Inc., and Fairchild Realty Group, Ltd., for reargument, and upon reargument, in effect, (a) vacated a judgment of the same court entered April 14, 1999, *inter alia,*granting the petition, vacating the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Southampton dated March 26, 1998, and reinstating the determination dated January 12, 1998, and (b) reinstated the determination dated March 26, 1998, and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

*524The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the motion for reargument *(see, Loland v City of New York,*212 AD2d 674; *see also, Rodney v New York Pyrotechnic Prods. Co.,*112 AD2d 410, 411; *Foley v Roche,*68 AD2d 558).

Moreover, upon reargument, the court properly vacated its prior judgment and reinstated the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Southampton (hereinafter the ZBA) dated March 26, 1998, which overruled the January 12, 1998, determination of the petitioner Board of Architectural Review and Historic Preservation of the Village of Southampton (hereinafter the ARB). Pursuant to Southampton Village Code § 116-34 and Village Law § 7-712-b (1), the ZBA is the administrative body designated to hear appeals from, *inter alia,*the ARB. In the absence of any limiting provision, it may consider the determination of a subordinate agency, in this case the ARB, de novo. Upon such consideration, it may make a new determination, provided that the new determination is supported by substantial evidence *(see, Matter of Promesa, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Health,*204 AD2d 179, *lv denied*84 NY2d 812). Since the ZBA’s determination that the proposed nursing home satisfied the standards for architectural review approval *(see,*Southampton Village Code § 116-33 [A], [B]) was supported by substantial evidence, it should not be disturbed *(see, Conley v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals,*40 NY2d 309).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are either not properly before this Court or without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
Anthony Douglas PRYOR, Sr., Employee v. EXPRESS SERVICES, Employer, Sedgwick CMS, Carrier

No. 177P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 20, 2018

Edward L. Pauley, Attorney at Law, for Pryor, Anthony Douglas (Sr.).

Stephen L. Kushner, Attorney at Law, for Express Services, et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 15th of June 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 20th of September 2018."
#### In re Walton J. BARNES.

No. 2003-OB-2166.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 1, 2003.

ORDER

Considering the Petition for Transfer to Disability Inactive Status,

IT IS ORDERED that Walton J. Barnes, Louisiana Bar Roll number 2770, be and he hereby is transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 22(B), until further order of this court.

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 26(E), this order shall be effective immediately.

/s/ Jeannette Theriot Knoll

Justice, Supreme Court of Louisiana
ANNUAL REPORT
Chevy Chase Auto Receivables Trust 1998-2
$ 153,615,935.94 5.97% Auto Receivables Backed Certificates
For the Year Ended December 31, 1999




           PRINCIPAL    INTEREST      NET       NET        30 +      DELQ.
              DIST        DIST       LOSSES    LOSS %     DELQ.        %
          ____________ ___________ ___________ ________ ____________ _______
 Jan-1999   4,825,543     645,214   1,093,625   10.33%   14,447,019   11.37%
 Feb-1999   4,379,889     621,448     990,249    9.67%   13,873,013   11.29%
 Mar-1999   5,465,616     599,877     796,973    8.15%   13,873,013   11.82%
 Apr-1999   5,776,693     572,959     920,077    9.88%   11,032,592    9.87%
 May-1999   4,624,794     544,509     635,555    7.12%    9,474,505    8.84%
 Jun-1999   3,857,955     521,731     562,688    6.53%    9,484,563    9.17%
 Jul-1999   4,170,139     502,731     446,089    5.39%   10,248,472   10.32%
 Aug-1999   3,866,549     482,193     433,473    5.46%    9,933,612   10.42%
 Sep-1999   4,135,239     463,150     480,035    6.31%   10,574,187   11.59%
 Oct-1999   3,859,687     442,784     509,909    7.00%   10,795,089   12.35%
 Nov-1999   3,910,758     423,775     594,382    8.54%   11,223,948   13.44%
 Dec-1999   3,728,626     404,515     525,506    7.89%   11,460,125   14.35%
          ____________ ___________ ___________
   Totals  52,601,491   6,224,886   7,988,560

  **  The date represents the month of the Distribution date, the
      information is from activity of the previous month.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


To Cell Pathways, Inc. and subsidiaries:

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed Form S-3
Registration Statement File No. 333-55158, Form S-8 Registration Statement File
No. 333-51762, Form S-3 Registration Statement File No. 333-50514, Form S-8
Registration Statement File No. 333-66701 and Form S-3 Registration Statement
File No. 333-93811.

/s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 23, 2001
STATE of North Carolina v. Tristan Philip HINES

No. 167P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2018

Mary McCullers Reece, Attorney at Law, Smithfield, Tristan Philip Hines, for Hines, Tristan Philip.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Lisa B. Finkelstein, Assistant Attorney General, Susan I. Doyle, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 1st of June 2018 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2018."
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SERGIO A. MORENO-GALLARDO, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 19-71818 

Agency No. A077-130-457 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 2, 2020**

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Sergio A. Moreno-Gallardo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal 

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, 

withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and 

cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 19-71818 

review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. 

Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part 

the petition for review.

We reject the Government’s contention that this court lacks jurisdiction to 

review the agency’s factual findings underlying the denial of asylum and 

withholding of removal. See Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F.3d 444, 448 (9th Cir. 

2012) (the jurisdictional bar in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) does not apply when the 

agency denies relief on the merits rather than in reliance on an applicant’s criminal

conviction). 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that MorenoGallardo failed to establish he was or would be persecuted in Mexico on account of 

a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) 

(even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must 

still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such 

group”); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s 

“desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random 

violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, MorenoGallardo’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Moreno-Gallardo does not challenge the agency’s determination that he is 

ineligible for CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 
 3 19-71818 

(9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief 

are waived). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Moreno-Gallardo’s CAT

claim.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal 

because Moreno-Gallardo raises no colorable legal or constitutional claim. See 

Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir. 2005) (the court’s 

jurisdiction over challenges to the agency’s discretionary determination is limited 

to constitutional claims or questions of law). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
STATE v. Quintel Martinez AUGUSTINE

130A03-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 15, 2018

Gretchen Engel, Attorney at Law, Durham, James E. Ferguson, II, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Augustine, Quintel Martinez.

Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jonathan P. Babb, Special Counsel to Attorney General, William R. West, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 15th of March 2018 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of March 2018."
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4527 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4527

To remove a use restriction on land formerly a part of Acadia National 
Park that was transferred to the town of Tremont, Maine, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 30, 2014

   Mr. Michaud (for himself and Ms. Pingree of Maine) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To remove a use restriction on land formerly a part of Acadia National 
Park that was transferred to the town of Tremont, Maine, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. USE RESTRICTION REMOVED.

    The Act entitled ``An Act to authorize the conveyance, for school 
purposes, of certain land in Acadia National Park to the town of 
Tremont, Maine, and for other purposes'', approved August 1, 1950, is 
amended by adding at the end the following: ``Lands conveyed to the 
town of Tremont, Maine, under the Act known as NPS Tract 06-126, which 
were conveyed by the National Park Service in deed recorded at the 
Hancock County Registry of Deeds Book 737 Page 467, National Park 
Service Deed 377, shall no longer be required to be used exclusively 
and perpetually for school purposes and upon the discontinuance of such 
use of said land, or any part thereof, shall no longer be required to 
revert to the United States.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1

                                       21



                                  EXHIBIT 6.10

This letter of Intent is made the 19th day of January 2000, between

Delta Capital Technologies Inc.
Suite B-201
1331 Homer Street
Vancouver, BC  V6B 5M5
Canada (herein after "Delta")

and

Matridigm Corporation
Suite 804
16th Ave SW
Calgary, AB  T2R 0S9
Canada (herein after "Matridigm")

and shall outline the basic terms of an agreement to be executed at a later
date.

Terms:

1.       Delta is a public company trading on the OTC Electronic Bulletin Board
         and its focus is the e-Business industry;
2.       The parties agree that a formal agreement clarifying the terms of this
         letter of intent will be drafted and that the parties shall complete
         the agreement prior to January 31, 2000;
3.       Delta shall acquire all the shares from the shareholders of Matridigm;
4.       Delta shall issue 500,000 shares ("the Delta shares") in exchange for
         all the shares of Matridigm;
5.       Delta shall pay to Matridigm $100,000 cash within 30 days of closing;
6.       Delta shall appoint Michael Steele of Matridigm to its Board of
         Directors;
7.       Delta shall put in place not later than April 1, 2000 a Stock Option
         Plan whereby the Company is authorized to issue annually up to five per
         cent (5%) of the total number of common shares issued and outstanding
         as of December 31, of the proceeding year. These options shall be
         available to directors, employees and consultants as scheduled in the
         completed agreement;
8.       Delta shall enter into employment contracts with its key employees, to
         include key Delta and Matridigm employees prior to the close of this
         transaction;
9.       Delta currently plans to maintain Matridigm as a wholly subsidiary but
         it reserves the right to amalgamate at a future date;
10.      Matridigm has provided Delta with financial and other documentation for
         Delta's due diligence;
11.      It is understood by the parties that prior to Delta completing the
         agreement, it shall require Board of Directors approval.


The parties agree to these general terms and further agree to negotiate in good
faith a mutually satisfactory final contract using this document as its basis.


/S/ Paul F. Davis
--------------------------------------
Paul F. Davis
Delta Capital Technologies Inc.



/S/ Mike Steele                           /S/ Cecilia Lanz
--------------------------------------    --------------------------------------
Mike Steele                               Cecilia Lanz
Matridigm Corporation
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



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of THOMAS PROPERTIES GROUP, INC. (the
Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



(i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



|                         |  |  |  |                        
|------------------------ |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                         |  | 
|Dated: November 22, 2004 |  |  |  | /S/    JAMES A.
THOMAS 
|                         |  |  |  | James A. Thomas        
|                         |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1350 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended or incorporated by reference in any registration
statement of the Company filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.



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