alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.02








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF 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 Annual Report of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Charter Graham L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christian Angstadt, Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:




(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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




















By:             /s/            Christian Angstadt





Name:                     Christian Angstadt


Title:                      Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management LLC,


general partner of the registrant





Date:                      March 29, 2010
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

Pursuant to Section 14(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and in accordance with Title 41of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 102-3.65, and following consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee has been renewed for a two-year period, beginning October 1, 2005. 

The Committee will provide advice to the Associate Director of the Office of Science for Nuclear Physics (DOE), and the Assistant Director, Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences (NSF), on scientific priorities within the field of basic nuclear science research. The Secretary of Energy has determined that renewal of the Committee is essential to conduct business of the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation and is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed by law upon the Department of Energy. The Committee will continue to operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91), and implementing regulations. 

*FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:*                     Ms. Rachel Samuel at (202) 586-3279.                 

      ( print page 58698)    
Issued in Washington, DC, on October 1, 2005. 

James N. Solit, 

Advisory Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. 05-20256 Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 10, 2021

NO. 03-19-00077-CR

Tallion Kyle Taylor, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 368TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, KELLY, AND SMITH

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgments of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgments of conviction. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgments of 

conviction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs 

is made.
**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 Annual Report of theglobe.com, inc. (the "Company") on
      Form
      10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael S. Egan,
      Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
      to
      the best of my knowledge and belief:




(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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




*Date:March
      27, 2008*




*/s/
                Michael S.
                Egan**Michael
                S. Egan*
                *Chief
                  Executive Officer*
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4725 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4725

 To provide for the acquisition by the Army Corps of Engineers of the 
 hurricane barrier for the city of New Bedford, Massachusetts, and the 
                   town of Fairhaven, Massachusetts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 2, 2010

  Mr. Frank of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was 
     referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the acquisition by the Army Corps of Engineers of the 
 hurricane barrier for the city of New Bedford, Massachusetts, and the 
                   town of Fairhaven, Massachusetts.

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

SECTION 1. NEW BEDFORD-FAIRHAVEN HURRICANE BARRIER.

    (a) Acquisition.--The Secretary of the Army, acting through the 
Corps of Engineers, as authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control 
Act of 1958 (Public Law 85-500), may acquire all right, title, and 
interest of the city of New Bedford, Massachusetts, and the town of 
Fairhaven, respectively, in and to the New Bedford-Fairhaven hurricane 
barrier, including any interest of the city and the town in and to land 
and any structures required for the operation and maintenance, repair, 
replacement, rehabilitation, and structural integrity of such hurricane 
barrier if an offer is made by the city of New Bedford, Massachusetts, 
and the town of Fairhaven, Massachusetts, to convey such right, title, 
and interest to the Secretary. Such acquisition shall conform to the 
following requirements:
            (1) Any such conveyance shall be by quitclaim deed and 
        without consideration.
            (2) Subject to the availability of appropriations for such 
        purpose, any such conveyance shall occur not later than two 
        years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Easement.--As part of the conveyance under subsection (a), the 
city of New Bedford and the town of Fairhaven may retain an easement 
authorizing the construction by the city and the town of a boardwalk 
and the recreational use of such boardwalk.
    (c) Assumption of Responsibility.--Upon the completion of the 
acquisition under subsection (a), the Secretary shall be responsible 
for the operation and maintenance, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, 
and structural integrity of such hurricane barrier in coordination with 
the city of New Bedford and the town of Fairhaven.
    (d) Recreational Use Defined.--In this section, the term 
``recreational use'' means the use of a bike path, pedestrian path, 
boardwalk, and a non-commercial fishing pier.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial 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 March 31, 2006 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: May 10, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Diana M. Laing                    
|                    |  |  |  | Diana M. Laing Chief Financial
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.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4327 

To prohibit the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from issuing certain 

decisions that will raise costs for ratepayers, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 27, 2014 

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York (for himself and Mr. GIBSON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from 

issuing certain decisions that will raise costs for ratepayers, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION AGAINST CERTAIN FERC DECI4 SIONS THAT WILL RAISE COSTS FOR RATE5 PAYERS. 

6 (a) COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS.—Prior to issuing a de7 cision described in subsection (b), the Federal Energy 

8 Regulatory Commission shall publish a cost-benefit analVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:12 Mar 29, 2014 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4327.IH H4327

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4327 IH

1 ysis of such decision, including the likely financial impact 

2 of such decision on ratepayers. 

3 (b) DECISIONS.—This section applies to any decision 

4 by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that will— 

5 (1) authorize the creation of a new capacity 

6 zone; or 

7 (2) affect the supply and demand curves or 

8 models used to determine prices at points in a ca9 pacity zone. 

10 (c) PROHIBITION.—If the Federal Energy Regulatory 

11 Commission determines, through a cost-benefit analysis 

12 published under subsection (a), that a decision described 

13 in subsection (b) will raise costs for ratepayers, then the 

14 Commission may not issue such decision. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 11507 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JEFFREY DAVID SMITH , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:16

- CR

- 256

- 1

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jeffrey David Smith appeals the district court’s revocation of his supervised release, arguing that the evidence failed to establish that he violated the conditions of his supervised release by committing a new offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). He contends that there was insufficien t evidence that his statement on his monthly reporting form, in which he falsely denied having contact with persons with a criminal record , was material or was made

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 6, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-11507 Document: 00514144239 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/06/2017No. 16

- 11507

2 with an intent to deceive, both of which are necessary elements under the
statute. A distr ict court may revoke a term of supervised release upon a finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); United States v. Hinson , 429 F.3d 114, 118

- 19 (5th Cir. 2005). The district court’s decision to revoke supervised release is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Grandlund , 71 F.3d 507, 509 (5th Cir. 1995) , opinion clarified , 77 F.3d 811 (5th Cir. 1996) . When the sufficiency of the evidence is cha llenged on appeal, this court must “ view the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence in a light most favorable to the government .” United States v. Alaniz

- Alaniz , 38 F.3d 788, 792 (5th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)

. The district court can “ choose among reasonable constructions of the evidence, ” and the evidence is sufficient i f a reasonable tri er of fact could have reached the district court ’s conclusion. Id. (intern al quotation marks and citation omitted). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, we conclude that a reasonable trier of fact could determine that Smith violated the conditions of h is supervised release by making a false stateme nt on his supervised release monthly reporting form in violation of § 1001. See Grandlund , 71 F.3d at 509 ; Alaniz

- Alaniz , 38 F.3d at 792. Therefore, the distri ct court’s judgment is A FFIRMED. Case: 16-11507 Document: 00514144239 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/06/2017
**Exhibit 10.24**

**FIRST AMENDMENT**

**TO THE**

**COLONY RESORTS LVH ACQUISITIONS, LLC**

**2004 INCENTIVE PLAN**

**WHEREAS**, Colony Resorts LVH Acquisitions, LLC (the “Company”), currently maintains and sponsors the Colony Resorts LVHAcquisitions, LLC 2004 Incentive Plan (the “Plan”); and 

**WHEREAS**, pursuant to Section 9(a) of the Plan, the Boardof Directors of the Company (the “Board”) has the power to amend the Plan; and 

**WHEREAS**, the Board now desire toamend the Plan to remove Section 7 of the Plan to (i) comply with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended from time to time, and (ii) eliminate the provision that excludes the value attributable to the Development Parcels (asdefined in the Plan). 

**NOW, THEREFORE**, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 

1. Section 7 of the Plan shall be deleted in its entirety. 

2. Governing Law. This amendment shall be construed and governed by the laws of the State of Nevada, without giving effect to conflicts of laws principles thereof which might refer such interpretations to thelaws of a different state or jurisdiction. 

3. Full force and effect of the Plan. Except as specifically amended herein, all otherprovisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MAR 23 2000

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

PUBLISH

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

____________________________

No. 94-9121

____________________________

D.C. Docket No. 94-CV-14–4MAC(WDO)

AURELIA DAVIS, as Next Friend of 

LaShonda D.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Middle District of Georgia

____________________________

(March 23, 2000)

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
2

Before TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON, COX, BIRCH, DUBINA, BLACK, CARNES,

BARKETT, HULL, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:

In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in this case, Davis v. Monroe County

Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629, 119 S. Ct. 1661, 143 L. Ed. 2d 839 (1999), the

judgment of the district court is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for further

proceedings.

SO ORDERED.

 

*Chief Judge R. Lanier Anderson recused himself and did not participate in this decision.
**EXHIBIT32.2**

** **

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

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Aventine Renewable Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Ajay Sabherwal, Chief Financial Officerof Aventine Renewable Energy Holdings, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to AventineRenewable Energy Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Aventine RenewableEnergy Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

/s/  Ajay Sabherwal                            

Ajay Sabherwal

Chief Financial Officer

August10, 2006

 

----
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Aventine Renewable Energy Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “Report”), I, George T. Henning, Jr., Interim ChiefExecutive Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer of AventineRenewable Energy Holdings, Inc.,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto the best of my knowledge and belief:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to AventineRenewable Energy Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Aventine Renewable Energy Holdings, Inc.and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
|   | /s/  George T. Henning, Jr.     |
|--------|--------------------------------------|
|   | George  T. Henning, Jr.         |
|   | Interim  Chief Executive Officer and |
|   | Interim  Chief Financial Officer     |
|   | November 9,  2009               |

 

1

----
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF THE 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 Monadnock Community Bancorp, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
William M. Pierce, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002 and in connection with this quarterly report on Form
10-QSB that:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of sections 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 company's financial condition and results of
          operations.

Date: August 12, 2004                           /s/ William M. Pierce, Jr.
                                                --------------------------
                                                William M. Pierce, Jr.
                                                Chief Executive Officer



                                       19
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

**Subsidiaries of eGain**

 

**Communications Corporation**

 

1. eGain Communications Ltd. (UK) 

 

2. eGain Communications Pty Ltd. (Australia) 

 

3. eGain (Cayman) Ltd. (Cayman) 

 

4. Inference Corporation (Delaware) 

 

5. eGain Communications Pvt. Ltd. (India) 

 

6. eGain Communications SrL (Italy) 

 

7. eGain Communications S.A. (France) 

 

8. eGain Communications B.V. (Netherlands) 

 

9. eGain Communications GmbH (Germany) 

 

10. eGain Communications Ltd. (Ireland) 

 

11. eGain Communications Pacific Pte. Ltd (Singapore)
STATE of North Carolina v. Sunshine Scarborough JOYNER, Defendant.

No. COA18-703

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 18, 2018

AFFIRMED IN PART. REVERSED IN PART. REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.