alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 MetroCorp Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, George M. Lee,
Executive Vice Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, 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 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 operating results of the Company.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    GEORGE M.
LEE                                          
|George M. Lee                                                 
|Executive Vice Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

March 18, 2010
$oi*s~r £/**>***»*/Ck'»€lr* f Ffor* fU %£~/^<O0r<^r

3^_L^_jj/^L/^__^ AH1 / a(H^j /v /* RECEIVED IN

fir±£jzLa •£*-*** —JUL 16 2015

-r I I) t / „ i Abel^costa,Clerk, .

£.0 Or-f I

T - /

Came5 /lOUs i TA^ cx^rf/?* //an T >x\ t^ a«o-^-

tk'S ho^Os-c^LU <CCxJr~-( TO Crr^Tf ~^A ft/A^'11'

REEDIN 7^"

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ,^

JUL212G15 JUL 2 12G15 '^°*'KoLr-rf "•?' V^/y>*r\

fop*//*** A*9v**r PiEftL ur\H /* I /K / Abel Acosta, Clerk n ~ ^__ « ^ .

~7 **( Ion
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


10-K




| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) the Annual Report on
    Form 10-K of the
    Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005
    (the Report) which this certification accompanies
    fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
    15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
    (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
|
| | (2) The information contained in the Report fairly
    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
    result of operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                  



| |                                               
| | ----------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Dawne S. Hickton                          
| |                                               
| | Dawne S. Hickton                              
| | Senior Vice President-Administration and Chief
| | Administrative Officer                        
| | (Principal Financial Officer)
IN RE: Harry James FOWLER

350P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 5, 2018

Harry James Fowler, for Fowler, Harry James

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th of October 2018 by Plaintiff for De Novo Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of December 2018."

Ervin, J. recused
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. PLATT WALKER HENRY.

(Filed 12 June 1968.)

Criminal Law § 148—

An appeal from an order allowing the solicitor’s motion for a change of venue and denying defendant’s petition for an order requiring the State Bureau of Investigation to make available to defense counsel certain written statements relating to the ease is premature and will be dismissed by the court *ex mero motu,*there being no provision for an appeal as a matter of right from interlocutory orders in criminal actions. G.S. 7A-27.

Appeal by defendant from order of *McConnell, J.,*January 1968 Session ÁNSON Superior Court.

At the January 1968 Session of Anson Superior Court, defendant was indicted for felonious assault. Prior thereto, defendant was given a preliminary hearing in the Anson County Criminal Court. Thereafter, defendant’s attorney petitioned Judge McConnell to enter an order requiring the State Bureau of Investigation to make available to defendant’s counsel certain written statements said Bureau had obtained from various persons.

After the defendant was indicted by the grand jury, the solicitor moved for change of venue and filed affidavits of several persons stating that in their opinion the State could not get a fair trial in Anson County.

Judge McConnell ordered the case removed to Richmond County for trial and denied defendant’s petition pertaining to SBI records. Defendant appealed to this Court.

*T. W. Bruton, Attorney General, by Harry W. McGalliard, Deputy Attorney General, for the State.*

*E. A. Hightower, Attorney for defendant appellant.*

Britt, J.

Article *5*of Chapter 7A of the General Statutes deals with jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. Pertinent portions of G.S. 7A-27 are as follows:

> “Appeals of right from the courts of the trial divisions. — * * *

> “(b) From any *final judgment*of a superior court, other than one described in subsection (a) of this section or one entered in a post-conviction hearing under article 22 of chapter 15, including any final judgment entered upon review of a decision of an administrative agency, appeal lies of right to the Court of Appeals.” (Emphasis added.)

Subsection (d) permits appeals from certain interlocutory orders *410in civil actions or proceedings, but there is no provision for an appeal as a matter of right from interlocutory orders in criminal actions.

In his oral argument, defense counsel indicated that *State v. Moore, 258*N.C. 300, 128 S.E. 2d 563, was his authority for appealing. *State v. Moore*is distinguishable for the reason that it was before the Supreme Court pursuant to petition for *certiorari,*and the further reason that it was decided prior to the enactment of G.S. 7A-27 by the 1967 General Assembly.

This Court *ex mero mo tu*holds that an appeal in this case was premature and should be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Campbell and Morris, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.1



CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION



I, Thomas Gutierrez, President and Chief Executive Officer of Xerium Technologies, Inc., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Xerium Technologies, Inc. (the
Registrant);



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:



a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c. Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The Registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably 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 or other
employees who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|Date: June 23, 2005                  
|                                     
|/s/ Thomas Gutierrez                 
|Thomas Gutierrez                     
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|(Principal Executive Officer)
STATE v. James Harold COURTNEY, III

160PA18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 29, 2019

Amanda S. Zimmer, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Courtney, James Harold (III).

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender.

Jess D. Mekeel, Assistant Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Matthew G. Pruden, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Andrew B. Banzhoff, Attorney at Law, Asheville, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 28th of January 2019 by North Carolina Advocates for Justice for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th of January 2019."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**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 Gramercy Capital Corp. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Marc Holliday, Chief Executive Officer ofGramercy, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Gramercy.

 

 
|               |   /s/ Marc Holliday |   |
|--------------------|-------------------------------|--------|
| Name:              | Marc Holliday                 |   |
| Title:             | Chief Executive Officer       |   |
|               |                          |   |
| September 10, 2004 |                          |
|                    |                               |        |  |

 

----
**EXHIBIT32.2**

**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 Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ending June 30, 2007 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange 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-OxleyAct of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

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/ Ajay Sabherwal      |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Ajay Sabherwal          |   |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |   |
|   | August 10, 2007         |   |

 

----
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HERBERT COLEMAN

No. 7010SC586

(Filed 18 November 1970)

Appeal by defendant from *Ragsdale, S.J.,*First July 1970 Regular Session, Wake Superior Court.

Defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while his license was permanently revoked and while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Upon a finding of indigency, counsel was appointed to represent him at trial. Upon his plea of not guilty, trial was by jury and a verdict of guilty was returned on each charge. Upon pronouncement of judgment the defendant, in person and without advice of counsel, gave notice of appeal. Defendant’s trial attorney’s request to be allowed to withdraw was allowed and defendant’s present counsel was appointed to perfect his appeal.

*Attorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General William W. Melvin and Assistant Attorney General T. Buie Costen for the State.*

*R. P. Upchurch for defendant appellant.*

VAUGHN, Judge.

This indigent defendant was ably represented at his trial and on this appeal. Numerous assignments of error have been brought forward and zealously argued. After careful consideration of the contentions of counsel and the entire record, we are of the opinion that defendant’s trial was free of prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Campbell and Britt concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TONY L. HORTON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

CORIZON INCORPORATED; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-16162 

D.C. No. 4:16-cv-00213-DCBPSOT 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 22, 2018**

Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Arizona state prisoner Tony L. Horton appeals pro se from the district 

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate 

indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. 

 

* 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

OCT 26 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-16162 

Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Horton’s action because Horton failed 

to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 

627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be 

construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a 

plausible claim for relief); see also Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128,

1139 (9th Cir. 2012) (a private entity is liable under § 1983 only if a constitutional 

violation was caused by an official policy, practice or custom); Toguchi v. Chung, 

391 F.3d 1051, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth elements for a deliberate 

indifference claim). 

AFFIRMED.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Delvalle, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0205

Issued: December 17, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On November 20, 2020 appellant filed an appeal from an April 29, 2020 merit decision

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 21-0205.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation 

Act.1 For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s 

review authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance 

of OWCP’s decision.2

The 180th day following the April 29, 2020 decision was October 26, 2020. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until November 20, 2020, more than 180 days after the

April 29, 2020 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 21-0205 is 

untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not offered 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8149; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a) (2009).

2

Id. at § 501.3(e).
2

a reason to explain the failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient 

to establish compelling circumstances.

The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date 

of their issuance.”

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-0205 is dismissed.

Issued: December 17, 2020

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

3

Id. at § 501.6(d).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7770

DAVID LEE SMITH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,

District Judge. (CA-02-761-1)

Submitted: January 16, 2003 Decided: January 27, 2003

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Lee Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

David Lee Smith appeals the district court’s order accepting

the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. See Smith v. North Carolina, No.

CA-02-761-1 (M.D.N.C. filed Nov. 6, 2002; entered Nov. 7, 2002).

We deny Smith’s motion to relieve the state court judge from his

judicial obligations. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Order entered September 1 5 , 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 20
- 00816
- CR
EX PARTE BABAK TAHERZADEH On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas Coun ty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F16
- 12037
- J

ORDER
A pp e l l a nt has filed a notice of a p p ea l seeking review of the trial court’s order denying bail pending appeal. This is a n ac c e le ra t e d a pp e a l g ov e rn e d b y T e x a s R ule of App e l l a te P r o c e dure 3 1.
W e ORDER the t

ri a l c ourt to pr e p a r e a c e rtifi ca t ion of a pp e l l a nt’s r i g ht to

a pp ea l a nd t o file it with the clerk’s record

. W e ORDER the D a l l a s Coun t y Di st r ic t Cle r k to file the c le r k’s

r e c o rd b y September 25, 2020

. We ORDER that the clerk’s record contain copies
of appe llant’s motion requesting bail pending appeal; the State’s response ; the trial
court’s order denying bail pending appeal ; any findings of fact and conclusions of– 2

–

law issued by the trial court regarding the denial of bail; the judgment of
conviction in the underlying case; any other documents , pleadings, or motions
related to the application for bail; the trial court’s certification of appellant’s right to appeal ; and any other documents requested by the parties

. We ORDER the court reporter to file, by Septe mber 25, 2020 , the reporter’s record of the hearing on the application for bail pending appeal. In the event no hearing was conducted or no reporter’s record was made of the hearing, the court reporter shall file written verificatio n that no reporter’s rec ord was made

. We ORDER a

ppellant’s brief filed by October 12 , 2020

. We ORDER t he
State to file its brief by October 27, 2020

. The Court will notify the parties of the submission date and panel by letter. Appellant’s appeal of the judgment adjudicating his guilt and resulting sentence, proceeding under assigned appellate cause number 05

- 20

- 00587

- CR, is a separate matter subject to the normal briefing schedule established by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The briefing submitted in this case under th e accelerated schedule established above is to be strictly limited to issues arising from the denial of appellant’s request for bail pending appeal.
W e DI R ECT the Cl e rk to s e nd c opies of th i s ord e r to the Hono ra b l e Richard Beacom, sitting by assignment as P r e sid i ng J ud g e , Criminal District– 3

–

Court No. 3 ; Kimberly Xavier, official court reporter, Criminal District Court No. 3; F e l icia Pitr e , Da ll as C ou n t y District C le r k; and c ouns e l for a l l pa r t i e s.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 487 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 487

 To waive the 35-mile requirement for designation of a critical access 
                  hospital under the Medicare program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 13, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To waive the 35-mile requirement for designation of a critical access 
                  hospital under the Medicare program.

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

SECTION 1. 35-MILE REQUIREMENT FOR DESIGNATION OF A CRITICAL ACCESS 
              HOSPITAL UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.

    Effective for cost reporting periods beginning on or after July 1, 
2009, the requirement of subclause (I) of section 1820(c)(2)(B)(i) of 
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i-4(c)(2)(B)(i)) is deemed to 
have been met by one hospital that is located in Osceola, Missouri.
                                 <all>
```