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







**CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO**


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


**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Wilshire Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Soo Bong Min, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Brian E. Cho, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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 Company.




WILSHIRE BANCORP, INC.Date: September 21, 2004
By:
/s/ Soo Bong MinSoo Bong MinChief Executive Officer




Date: September 21, 2004
By:
/s/ Brian E. ChoBrian E. ChoChief Financial Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. Jason Lynn YOUNG, Defendant.

No. COA13-586-2

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 20, 2018

NO ERROR IN PART. AFFIRMED IN PART.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT JUAN SOTO, DOC #Y29598, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-2435 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed March 22, 2019. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Lee County; Bruce E. Kyle, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KHOUZAM, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
| (1)   | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of MV Fund II, LLC for the quarter                ended                September 30, 2005 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 on Form 10-QSB for                the                quarter ended September 30, 2005, fairly presents in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MV                Fund II,                LLC. |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   By: | /s/                Sam Medley                                                                                          |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  Name:     |  Sam                Medley                                                                                        |
|  Title:    |  Chief                Executive Officer of MV Funding Group, Inc., sole Manager of MV                Fund II, LLC |
|  Date:     |  November                14, 2005                                                                                 |
| By:             |  /s/              Rowe Nelson                                                                                     |
|  Name:     |  Rowe                Nelson                                                                                       |
|  Title:    |  Chief                Financial Officer of MV Funding Group, Inc., sole Manager of MV                Fund II, LLC |
|  Date:     |  November                14, 2005                                                                                 |
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1



                            PARK-OHIO INDUSTRIES INC.
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                        (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT RATIO DATA)


<Table>
<Caption>
                                           2003            2002            2001           2000           1999
                                           ----            ----            ----           ----           ----
<S>                                      <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>           <C>
Earnings (loss)
     before income taxes                 $(11,523)       $(11,044)       $(36,844)       $  7,906      $28,608

Less capitalized interest

Fixed charges                              29,572          31,206          35,320          35,084       28,690
                                         --------        --------        --------        --------      -------

Earnings available for fixed
     charges                             $ 18,049        $ 19,750        $ (1,524)       $ 42,990      $57,298

Fixed charges:
Interest component
     of rent expense                     $  3,421        $  3,583        $  4,212        $  4,272        3,938

Interest expense                           26,151          27,623          31,108          30,812       24,752

Interest capitalized

Amortization of deferred financing
     costs                                     --(1)           --(1)           --(1)           --(1)        --(1)
                                         --------        --------        --------        --------      -------

Total fixed charges                      $ 29,572        $ 31,206        $ 35,320        $ 35,084      $28,690

Ratio of earnings to fixed
    charges                                      (2)             (2)             (2)          1.2x         2.0X
</Table>


(1)     Included in interest expense
(2)     Earnings were inadequate to cover fixed charges for the years ended
        December 31, 2003, 2002, and 2001, and the coverage deficiency totaled
        $11,523, $11,044 and $36,844, respectively.
STATE of North Carolina v. Denzil Dequon FENNELL

No. 314P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 24, 2018.

Denzil Dequon Fennell, for Fennell, Denzil Dequon

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 20th of September 2018 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Wake County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

*393"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of October 2018."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th of September 2018 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of October 2018."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th of September 2018 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of October 2018."
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5004 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5004

To amend section 1004 of title 39, United States Code, to include that 
     it is a policy of the Postal Service to ensure reasonable and 
  sustainable workloads and schedules for supervisory and management 
   employees and to clarify provisions relating to consultation and 
             changes or terminations in certain proposals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 13, 2010

   Mr. Connolly of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend section 1004 of title 39, United States Code, to include that 
     it is a policy of the Postal Service to ensure reasonable and 
  sustainable workloads and schedules for supervisory and management 
   employees and to clarify provisions relating to consultation and 
             changes or terminations in certain proposals.

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

SECTION 1. POSTAL SERVICE SUPERVISORY AND OTHER MANAGERIAL 
              ORGANIZATIONS.

    Section 1004 of title 39, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``to ensure reasonable 
        and sustainable workloads and schedules for supervisory and 
        management employees;'' after ``other managerial personnel;'';
            (2) in subsection (b), in the second sentence, by inserting 
        ``as provided under subsection (d) and any changes in, or 
        termination of, pay policies and schedules and fringe benefit 
        programs for members of the supervisors' organization as 
        provided under subsection (e)'' before the period; and
            (3) in subsection (e)(1), by inserting ``, or termination 
        of,'' after ``any changes in''.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EDWARD EARL JOYNER

No. 748SC663

(Filed 20 November 1974)

1. Criminal Law § 124— verdict of “guilty as charged” — sufficiency

Where the clerk asked the jury if they found defendant guilty as charged or not guilty, the verdict “guilty as charged” alluded to the warrant and it was not necessary that the clerk’s question contain all the elements of a criminal offense.

2. Criminal Law § 113— jury instructions — summary of evidence not required

A trial judge is not required to summarize the evidence to the jury; rather, he must state only such evidence which is necessary to explain the application of the law thereto.

Appeal by defendant from *Winner, Judge,*18 May 1974 Session of Superior Court held in Lenoir County.

Defendant was convicted under a warrant charging him with operating a motor vehicle on a public highway at a time when his license was suspended. Judgment was entered imposing an active sentence of six months.

*Attorney- General James H. Carson, Jr., by John R. Morgan, Associate Attorney, for the State.*

*Gerrans & Spence by C. E. Gerrans for defendant appellant.*

VAUGHN, Judge.

[1] Defendant contends that the court erred in accepting the verdict of the jury. The proceedings were as follows:

> “Clerk . . . How find you the defendant, Edward Earl Joyner as to the charge of driving while license suspended, guilty as charged or not guilty?

> Juror: We find the defendant guilty as charged.”

Defendant argues that the jury has not convicted him of a crime because the Clerk’s question did not contain all the elements of a criminal offense. We overrule the assignment of error. The verdict “guilty as charged” alludes to the warrant, *State v. Medlin,*15 N.C. App. 434, 190 S.E. 2d 425, and will thus be interpreted in the light of the warrant. *State v. Albarty,*238 N.C. 130, 76 S.E. 2d 381.

*742
      [2] The only other assignment of error is that the court “erred in failing to summarize the evidence to the jury.” A judge is not required to “summarize the evidence.” He is required to declare and explain the law arising on the evidence given in the case and need not state such evidence except to the extent necessary to explain the application of the law thereto. G.S. 1-180. This assignment of error is overruled.

We find no prejudicial error in defendant’s trial.

No error.

Judges Campbell and Morris concur.
Exhibit 13.2



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 on Form 20-F of Gentry Resources Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1.  The annual 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 annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.





Date:  June 28, 2004





(signed) Ketan Panchmatia



Ketan Panchmatia

Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer







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 the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Collegiate Funding Services,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, J. Barry Morrow, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 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 the
Company. Date: August 20, 2004 By: /s/ J. Barry Morrow
J. Barry Morrow
Chief Executive Officer and President
STATE v. Harvey Lee GRADY

250P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 24, 2018

Craig M. Cooley, Attorney at Law, Cary, for Grady, Harvey Lee.

Ashish K. Sharda, Assistant Attorney General, Jon David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th of August 2018 by Defendant to Deem Petition for Discretionary Review Timely Filed:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of October 2018."
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-3928

___________________________

Clayton Walker

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Joseph Harmon, individual capacity; Black Hills Fugitive Task Force

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of South Dakota - Rapid City

____________

 Submitted: May 25, 2017

Filed: June 2, 2017

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Clayton Walker appeals following the district court’s dismissal of his pro se 1

civil complaint. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, we find

The Honorable Jeffrey L. Viken, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

1

the District of South Dakota.
no error warranting reversal. We therefore affirm the judgment entered in favor of

defendants. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas December 14, 2020 No. 04-20-00399-CV CIRRUS DESIGN CORPORATION ,

Appellant
v. Sydney BERRA , Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Lee Berra, and on

behalf of his surviving parents, Philip Berra and Ellen Berra, Appellee From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CI01530 Honorable Monique Diaz, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R Appellee’s second motion to extend time to file the appellee’s brief is granted. We order the appellee’s brief due January 18, 2021. Counsel is advised that no further extensions of time will be granted absent a timely motion that: (1) demonstrates extraordinary circumstances justifying further delay; (2) advises the court of the efforts counsel has expended in preparing the brief; and (3) provides the court reasonable assurance that the brief will be completed and filed by the requested extended deadline. The court does not generally consider a heavy workload to be an extraordinary circumstance.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 14th day of December, 2020.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN FLOYD

No. 7310SC435

(Filed 11 July 1973)

Appeal by defendant from *Braswell, Judge,*29 January 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Wake County.

Defendant was convicted by a jury for possession and sale of heroin. The State’s evidence showed that an officer acting in an undercover capacity bought fifteen bags of heroin from the defendant for $90.00. Defendant had been previously known to the witness and was positively identified at the trial. Defendant denied the sale and claimed mistaken identity.

From judgment imposing prison sentence of five years, defendant appeals.

*Attorney General Morgan, by Associate Attorney Poole, for the State.*

*Robert P. Gruber for defendant appellant.*

BALEY, Judge.

After a careful examination of the record we are unable to find error in the proceedings in the court below. Defendant was convicted by a jury upon a plea of not guilty. The indictments were proper in form and the evidence of the State was sufficient to support the verdict. Sentence imposed was within statutory limits.

Upon the record, defendant received a fair trial, free from prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Campbell and Hedrick concur.
#### Albert J. TOOKER, Appellant, v. STATE OF MONTANA and W. J. Estelle, Warden, Appellee.

No. 26231.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Oct. 14, 1971.

Albert J. Tooker, in pro. per.

Robert L. Woodahl, Montana Atty. Gen., J. C. Weingartner, Patrick J. Bro-phy, Asst. Attys. Gen., Helena, Mont., for appellee.

Before CHAMBERS and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and McNICHOLS,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Ray McNichols, United States District Judge for the District of Idaho, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

The order dismissing Tooker’s petition for habeas corpus is affirmed.

Tooker has had an evidentiary hearing in the state district court on most of the issues which the federal district court has determined not to disturb. Tooker v. Estelle, decided June 5, 1970, 332 F. Supp. 245.

The deposition point is precluded by Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 88 S.Ct. 1318, 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968). On the transcript point, the request for a transcript came long after the right to take a state appeal had expired. In such circumstances, the right to a transcript is not always automatic. See Hines v. Baker, 422 F.2d 1002 (10th Cir. 1970). Other issues we also find without merit.
**Exhibit 31.2**
CERTIFICATION
     I, Kevin A. Landgraver, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of CollegiateFunding Services, Inc.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and
     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
Date:November 12, 2004 
By:/s/ Kevin A. LandgraverKevinA. LandgraverChief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President