alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

The undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,that:

 

(1) The accompanying  quarterly report on Form 10-Qfor the period ended April 30, 2009, fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934,  and

 

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

 

 
| Date: June 15, 2009 | /s/ Robert J. Ferguson                                     |
|--------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|
|                     | Robert J. Ferguson, President and Chief Executive  Officer |
|                     |                                                       |
|                     |                                                       |
| Date: June 15, 2009 | /s/ Brett L. Frevert                                       |
|                     | Brett L. Frevert, Interim Chief Financial Officer          |

 

1

----
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6533** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. ORILLION CRADDOCK , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. Robert E. Payne , Senior District Judge. ( 3:08

- cr - 00049

- REP

- 1 ; 3:16

- cv - 00183

- REP )

Submitted : July 28, 2016 Decided: August 2, 2016

Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Orillion Craddock , Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIA M: Orillion Craddock appeal s the district court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. United States v. Craddock , No. 3:08

- cr - 00049

- REP

- 1 (E.D. Va. Mar. 23, 2016). Additionally, we construe Craddock ’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
§ 2 255 motion. United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously u navailable. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Craddock ’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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 Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - Order No. 1414

Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

*Whereas*, the Montgomery Area Chamber of Commerce, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 222, submitted an application to the Board for authority to expand FTZ 222 to include two sites at the Airport Industrial Commercial Park (Site 3 - 1,044 acres) and at the Montgomery County Technology Park (Site 4 - 368 acres) in Montgomery, Alabama, adjacent to the Birmingham Customs port of entry (FTZ Docket 57-2004, filed 12/8/04);                

*Whereas*, notice inviting public comment has been given in the                     **Federal Register**                     (69 FR 74492, 12/14/04) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,                

*Whereas*, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations would be satisfied, and that approval of the application would be in the public interest;                

*Now, therefore*, the Board hereby orders:                

The application to expand FTZ 222 is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28, and further subject to the Board's standard 2,000-acre limit for the overall zone project.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 5th day of October 2005.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

Attest:

Dennis Puccinelli,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 05-20931 Filed 10-18-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE: 3510-DS-S
# FILED September 19, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr . App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRI MINAL APPEA LS OF TENNESSEE ATJA CKSON SEPTEM BER SE SSION, 1997 STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9611-CR-00390 ) Appell ee, ) ) ) SHELBY COU NTY VS. ) ) HON. JOSEPH B. DAI LEY KARL HAMILTON a.k. a. ) JUDGE RANDOLPH PRUITT, ) ) Ap pella nt. ) (Burg lary)

ON AP PEA L FROM THE J UDGMENT OF THE CRIMINAL COURT OF SHELBY CO UNTY FOR THE APP ELLA NT : FOR THE APPELLEE : W AL KE R G W INN JOHN KNOX W ALKUP Assist ant Publ ic Def ender Attor ney General and Reporter 201 Poplar , Sui te 2- 01 Memphis, TN 38103 GEORGIA BLYTHE F ELNER Assist ant At tor ney General 425 5th A ven ue N orth Nashvil le, TN 37243 JOHN W. PI EROTTI Dist ri ct Attor ney General DAVI D HENRY Assist ant Di str ictAtto rney Gener al Criminal Justi ce Complex, Suit e 301 201 PoplarStreet Memphis, TN 38103
OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFIRMED P URSU ANT T O RULE 20 DAVI D H. WELLES, JUD GE-2- 

# ORDER

The Defe nda nt was convicted on a jury v erdic t of one coun t of burglary. He was sentenc ed as a caree r o ff ender t o twel ve years in t he Department of Correct ion. In th is ap pe al h e a rgu es tha t the evid en ce intro du ce d a ga ins t him is insuffi cientto su pp ort h is conviction. W e disag ree an d affirm the j udgment of t he trial cou rt.
The proo f sho we d tha t a Me m ph is pu blic elem entary sc hoo l’s silent alarm syst em acti vated a t ap pro xim ately2:30 a.m. on June 16, 1995. Two police cruisers pro m ptly re sp on de d. A s th ey a rrive d, th e o ffice rs h ea rd s om eo ne yell “Poli ce” and saw t he Defendantrunni ng fr om a “cubbyhol e” are a at t he back of the sch oo l. He wa s ap pre he nd ed im med iat ely . He spont aneouslytol d the officers thatitwas nothis i dea to break int o the sc hool, and thatsome guys had off ered hi m so me of t he property for hel ping. In t he “cubby hole”area, a window had been forced o pen. Some tool s and food it ems were locat ed near t he wind ow. A tel evi sion and a VCR belonging t o the sc hool wer e found i n the school’ s play ground ar ea. No ot her suspects were f ound.
We concl ude thatthe ev idence presented i s suff ici ent t o supportthe f indi ng by the tr ier offactof gu ilt beyo nd a reas ona ble d oub t. W e furtherconcl ude that no e rror of la w req uiring a reve rsal o f the jud gm ent is a ppa rent o n the reco rd.
Based upon a thorough readi ng of t he record, t he bri efs ofthe parti es, and the law gov erni ng the i ssues pres ented forrevi ew, t he judgmentof the trial court-3-

is aff ir med in accor dance wit h Rule 20 ofthe Courtof Cri minal Appeal s of Tennessee.

_______________________________ DAVI D H. WELLES, JUD GE
CONCUR:

___________________________________ JOE B. JONE S, PRES I DI NG JU DGE

___________________________________ JOE G. RI LEY , JUD GE
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-40788

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE LUIS FLORES-GARZON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:19-CR-1008-1

Before CLEMENT, GRAVES, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Luis FloresGarzon has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Flores-Garzon has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 4, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-40788 Document: 00515441060 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/04/2020
No. 19-40788

2

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 19-40788 Document: 00515441060 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/04/2020
Joseph Lee HAM v. Supt. David MILLIS, et al.

No. 391P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 27, 2018

Joseph Lee Ham, for Ham, Joseph Lee

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Scott E. Thomas, District Attorney, for Millis, David (Supt.), et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the application filed by Petitioner on the 5th of November 2018 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Carteret County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of November 2018."
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6610

TIMOTHY ENOS EDENS, SR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 14-6720

TIMOTHY ENOS EDENS, SR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District 

of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (5:12-cv-03427-SB)

Submitted: July 29, 2014 Decided: August 1, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Timothy Enos Edens, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Enos Edens, Sr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition. Edens also seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 59(e). These orders are not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

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

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

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

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

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

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

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

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. We 
4

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY

ACT OF 2002

I, James R. Sulat, 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 the Annual Report of Maxygen, Inc. on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2010 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Maxygen, Inc.



By:

/s/    James R. SulatName:

James R. SulatTitle:

Chief Executive Officer &Chief Financial OfficerDate:

March 8, 2011
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-20049 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JOSEPH ALVIN ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-90-108-S

- - - - - - - - - - June 25, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Joseph Alvin Anderson, #52456-079, appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He argues his criminal prosecution following the administrative forfeiture of his gun collection of 111 guns violated the Fifth Amendment prohibition against double jeopardy. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and perceive no reversible error.No.96-20049 - 2 - Jeopardy did not attach because Anderson was not a party to the administrative forfeiture. See United States v. Arreola-Ramos , 60 F.3d 188, 192 (5th Cir. 1995). We affirm on the basis of the reasons stated by the district court.
AFFIRMED.
#### Commonwealth ex rel. Jackson, Appellant, *v.*Banmiller.

*59Submitted October *8,*1957.

Before Rhodes, P. J., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ.

*James Jackson,*appellant, in propria persona.

*Nicholas H. Larzelere,*Assistant District Attorney, and *Bernard E. DiJoseph,*District Attorney, for appellee.

January 21, 1958:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The order of the court below is affirmed on the opinion of Judge Corson, as reported in 11 Pa. D. & C. 2d 296. See, also, *Commonwealth ex rel. Clawson v. Baldi,*180 Pa. Superior Ct. 258, 119 A. 2d 874; *Commonwealth ex rel. Gryger v. Burke,*173 Pa. Superior Ct. 458, 470, 98 A. 2d 380; *Commonwealth ex rel. Reese v. Claudy,*
      *60170 Pa. Superior Ct. 488, 87 A. 2d 492; *Commonwealth ex rel. Quinn v.*Smith, 144 Pa. Superior Ct. 160, 19 A. 2d 504.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 202 (Thursday, October 20, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 61131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20951]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK


Notice of Open Special Meeting of the Sub-Saharan Africa Advisory 
Committee (SAAC) of the Export-Import Bank of the United States 
(Export-Import Bank)

    Summary: The Sub-Saharan Africa Advisory Committee was established 
by Pub. L. 105-121, November 26, 1997, to advise the Board of Directors 
on the development and implementation of policies and programs designed 
to support the expansion of the Bank's financial commitments in Sub-
Saharan Africa under the loan, guarantee and insurance programs of the 
Bank. Further, the committee shall make recommendations on how the Bank 
can facilitate greater support by U.S. commercial banks for trade with 
Sub-Saharan Africa.
    Time and Place: November 16, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. The 
meeting will be held at the Export-Import Bank in Room 1143, 811 
Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571.
    Agenda: The meeting will include introduction of the 2006 Sub-
Saharan Africa Advisory Board members; update on AGOA; discussions of 
the 2005 SAAC recommendations; an update on the FY05 business 
development efforts in the region; and report on 2006 International 
Business Development strategies; and new business.
    Public Participation: The meeting will be open to public 
participation, and the last 10 minutes will be set aside for oral 
questions or comments. Members of the public may also file written 
statement(s) before or after the meeting. If any person wishes 
auxiliary aids (such as a sign language interpreter) or other special 
accommodations, please contact, prior to November 16, 2005, Barbara 
Ransom, Room 1241, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571, 
Voice: (202) 565-3525 or TDD (202) 565-3377.
    For Further Information Contact: For further information contact 
Barbara Ransom, Room 1241, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20571, (202) 565-3525.

Kamil Cook,
Deputy General Counsel (Acting).
[FR Doc. 05-20951 Filed 10-19-05; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-M
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.5.8

                                AMENDMENT 2003-1
                                     OF THE
                                  PULITZER INC.
                             SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE
                              BENEFIT PENSION PLAN

         Effective January 1, 2003, the Pulitzer Inc. Supplemental Executive
Benefit Pension Plan (the "Plan") is amended as set forth below.

         1. The introductory language in Paragraph G. of Article I of the Plan
is amended to read as follows:

         "Accrued Benefit" as of a specified date, with respect to a
Participant, means an annual benefit equal to (1) minus (2), as below:".

         2. Part (3) of Paragraph G. of Article I (which provides an offset for
account balances under the Pulitzer Inc. Retirement Savings Plan) is deleted.

         3. The vesting schedule in Paragraph A. of Article V is amended in its
entirety to read as follows:

                  Years of Service         Vested Percentage
                  ----------------         -----------------
                    Less than 5                    0%
                     5 or more                    100%


         4. The foregoing amendments do not apply to Participants or former
Participants whose employment with the Company and its subsidiaries terminated
prior to January 1, 2003.


                                                     PULITZER INC.


                                                     By:  /s/ Alan G. Silverglat
                                                          ----------------------
                                                          Alan G. Silverglat
1

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

MAY 16 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

IN THE MATTER OF DAVID L.

SMITH,

Attorney-Appellant.

Nos. 96-1254 & 96-1256

(D.C. Nos. 96-DP-4 & 95-CC-5)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT1

Before BRORBY, EBEL and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

This entire case is sealed. For a copy of this decision, please see Patrick Fisher.
Dismissed and Opinion Filed October 2, 2014.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-14-01020-CR

JOSE RAMIRO DELAROSA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F14-52888-T

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Francis and Myers

Opinion by Justice Myers

Jose Ramiro Delarosa was convicted of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and 

sentenced to 18 months’ confinement in a state jail. Sentence was imposed in open court on July 

9, 2014. Appellant filed a motion for new trial on August 6, 2014, which the trial court granted. 

The Court has before it appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal stating the trial court granted his 

motion for new trial. The State, in response, asks that we abate the appeal for findings regarding 

whether the trial court intended to grant a new trial. We deny the State’s motion to abate.

An order granting a motion for new trial restores a case to its position before the former 

trial and there is no longer a judgment in place. See TEX. R. APP. P. 21.9(b); Waller v. State, 931 

S.W.2d 640, 643–44 (Tex. App.––Dallas 1996, no pet.). Absent a judgment of conviction or 

other appealable order, this Court has no jurisdiction over an appeal. See Wright v. State, 969 

S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.––Dallas 1998, no pet.).
–2–

Accordingly, we grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

141020F.U05

/Lana Myers/

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JOSE RAMIRO DELAROSA, Appellant

No. 05-14-01020-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F14-52888-T.

Opinion delivered by Justice Myers, Chief 

Justice Wright and Justice Francis 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction.

Judgment entered this 2nd day of October, 2014.
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 Gramercy Capital Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Roger M. Cozzi, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



/s/ ROGER M. COZZI Name:  Roger M. Cozzi
Title:Chief Executive Officer


Date:
November 9, 2009

---



QuickLinks