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 Global Gold Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the year December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Drury J. Gallagher, the Chairman, Chief
Executive Officer and Treasurer 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:

(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 28, 2006              /s/ Drury J. Gallagher
                                            ----------------------------------
 Date Amended:  August 4, 2006              Drury J. Gallagher
                                            Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
                                            and Treasurer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1816
BARR MICHAEL MARTIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF DANVILLE, VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-97-57-D) Submitted: July 30, 1998 Decided: August 26, 1998 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Barr Michael Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Agnis Chandra Chakravorty, WOODS, ROGERS & HAZLEGROVE, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order dismissing hiscivil complaint alleging employment discrimination. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Martin v. City of Danville, VA , No. CA-97-57-D (W.D. Va. May 4, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 27, 2010

d0419 

# Order

April 27, 2010

140440

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140440 COA: 287087 Ionia CC: 07-013625-FH RAYMOND CHARLES FAIRFIELD, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 5, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                                CERTIFICATION OF
                             CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                        OF MISSION RESOURCES CORPORATION

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and accompanies the annual report on Form 10-K
(the "FORM 10-K") for the year ended December 31, 2004 of Mission Resources
Corporation (the "ISSUER").

I, Robert L. Cavnar, the Chief Executive Officer of the Issuer, certify that:

      (i)   the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
            or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
            78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

      (ii)  the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Issuer.

      Dated: March 8, 2005                              /s/ Robert L. Cavnar
                                                        ------------------------

Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 8th day of March 2005

/s/ Carmen M. Garcia
-------------------------------
Notary Public in and for the
State of Texas

My commission expires: May 15, 2006

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

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

In the Matter of X.S., a Juvenile

No. 06-22-00038-CV

Appeal from the County Court at Law of 

Harrison County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 5105-

J). Memorandum Opinion delivered by 

Justice Stevens, Chief Justice Morriss and 

Justice van Cleef participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find reversible error in the judgment of 

the court below. Therefore, we reverse the juvenile court’s order of transfer to criminal court 

and remand the matter to the juvenile court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

We further order that the appellee pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED SEPTEMBER 2, 2022

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.T., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

CUSTOMS & BORDER PATROL, 

El Paso, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0054

Issued: November 29, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

On October 14, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from a July 17, 2019 decision of the Office 

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

Docket No. 22-0054.

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 July 17, 2019 decision was January 13, 2020. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until October 14, 2021,more than 180 days after the July 17, 

2019 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-0054 is untimely filed. 

The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not offered a reason to 

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

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. 22-0054 is dismissed.

Issued: November 29, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3

Id. at § 501.6(d).
<Page>

             ALLMERICA FINANCIAL LIFE INSURANCE AND ANNUITY COMPANY

                                 DISCOUNT RIDER


OVERVIEW: This Rider reduces total rider charges when both the Enhanced Earnings
Rider (EER) and an Enhanced Death Benefit Rider (EDB) are in effect.

APPLICABILITY: This Rider is made a part of the contract to which it is attached
and is effective on the issue date.

DISCOUNT: If both the Enhanced Earnings Rider (EER) and an Enhanced Death
Benefit Rider (EDB) are in effect, total rider charges will be reduced on a
contract monthly basis by an amount equal to 1/12th of an annual percentage rate
of .05% times the Accumulated Value of the contract on that date. The discount
shall only apply while both the EER Rider and an EDB Rider are in effect.

TERMINATION:  This Rider will terminate on the earliest of the following:

       (a)  when either the EER Rider or EDB Rider terminates; or

       (b)  surrender of the contract.



                    Signed for the Company at Dover, Delaware


           /s/ Mark A. Hug                                /s/ Charles F. Cronin

           President                                      Secretary
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LEWIS WILLIAMS

No. 7527SC1059

(Filed 5 May 1976)

Criminal Law §§ 22, 91— negotiated plea — refusal of court to accept — continuance as a matter of right

Defendant was entitled to a continuance as a matter of right following the court’s refusal to accept his negotiated plea and defendant’s withdrawal thereof. G.S. 15A-1024.

Appeal by defendant from *Friday, Judge.*Judgment entered 11 September 1975 in Superior Court, Gaston County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 7 April 1976.

Defendant was indicted and tried upon a bill of indictment charging forgery and uttering the forged check. When the case was called for trial [10 September 1975] a negotiated plea was tendered which the trial judge refused to accept, and the defendant’s plea was withdrawn. The case was called for trial again on the following day [11 September 1975] and defendant moved for a continuance. The motion was denied. Defendant entered a plea of not guilty and upon a verdict of guilty as charged he was given an active sentence. Defendant appealed to this Court.

*Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Henry H. Burgwyn, for the State.*

*Harris and Bumgardner, by Don H. Bumgardner, for defendant appellant.*

*409ARNOLD, Judge.

Defendant maintains that when the trial judge rejected the plea arrangement it entitled defendant to a continuance until the next session of court. In view of G.S. 15A-1024 we must agree with this contention and award defendant a new trial.

Under G.S. 15A-1024, if the judge determines to impose a sentence other than that provided in the plea arrangement between the parties he must so inform the defendant, and further inform defendant that he may withdraw his plea. “Upon withdrawal, the defendant is entitled to a continuance until the next session of court.”

The official commentary to G.S. 15A-1023 provides: “Subsection (1) requires the judge in open court, ... , to tell the defendant whether he will abide by the recommendation as to the sentence. If the judge refuses to go along, the parties can either renegotiate or the defendant may withdraw his plea and secure a continuance as a matter of right. See § 15A-1024.” Defendant was entitled to a continuance as a matter of right following the court’s refusal to accept the negotiated plea and defendant’s withdrawal thereof.

New trial.

Judges Morris and Hedrick concur.
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




In
connection with the quarterly report of Otelco Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Curtis L. Garner, Jr., Chief
Financial 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 my
knowledge:




1.
                The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
                The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.














/s/ Curtis L. Garner, Jr.Curtis
      L. Garner, Jr.Chief
      Financial OfficerMay
      8, 2009
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of President and Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to**

**18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ares Capital Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Michael J. Arougheti, as President of the Company, and Penni F. Roll, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, 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 his or her 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.

 

Date: May 8, 2012

 
| /s/   MICHAEL J. AROUGHETI      |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|
| Michael   J. Arougheti          |   |
| *President*                     |   |
| (Principal   Executive Officer) |   |
|                            |   |
| /s/   PENNI F. ROLL             |   |
| Penni   F. Roll                 |   |
| *Chief Financial Officer*       |   |
| (Principal   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 Ares Capital Corporation and will be retained by Ares Capital Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
| (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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  Dated:  November      12, 2009 |  By: |   /s/      Louis E. Ryan                                   |
|------------------------------------------------|-----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                           |      |           Louis E. Ryan                          |
|                                           |      |           Chief Executive Officer  and |
|                                           |      |     Chairman      of the Board of Directors      |
|                                           |      |                                                  |

----
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.53

THIRD AMENDMENT TO LEASE DATED DECEMBER 18, 1995 OF PORTION OF 5060 EUCALYPTUS
AVENUE, CHINO, CA BETWEEN PROVENA FOODS INC. AS LESSOR AND R-COLD AND THERMA
LOCK, INC. AS LESSEE

The above referenced lease is hereby amended to extend the term by one year on
the following tenus and conditions:

1.   Rental Rate:                  March 1, 2002 to February 28, 2003
                                   $10,865.00/ Month (*$0.41/sq.ft.)

2.   Extension Start Date:         March 1, 2002

3.   Extension End Date            February 28, 2003

4.   Security Deposit              Increased by $530 from $10,335.00 to
                                   $10,865.00

All other terms of the referenced lease shall remain in full force and effect.

LESSOR:                                           LESSEE:
PROVENA FOODS INC.                                R-COLD, INC.

By /s/ Santo Zito                                 By /s/ Mike Mulcahy
   --------------------------                        ----------------------
                         Date                                  Date 2-21-02
            2-21-02

                                                   THERMA LOCK, INC.

                                                   By /s/ Mike Mulcahy
                                                      ---------------------
                                                               Date 2-21-02

* means approximation

                                       21
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U. S. C.SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

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

 

Inconnection with the Amendment No.1 on Form10-QSB/A to the Quarterly Report of Vistula CommunicationsServices, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, RupertGalliers-Pratt, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to my bestknowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, adopted pursuant to§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1)              the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2)              the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ RUPERT GALLIERS-PRATT |   |
|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|   | Rupert Galliers-Pratt     |
|   | Chief Executive Officer   |

 

Dated: January 30, 2006

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, orother document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to VistulaCommunications Services, Inc. and will be retained by VistulaCommunications Services, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.S., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

U.S. SECRET SERVICE, COMMUNICATIONS 

CENTER, Washington, DC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1091

Issued: July 27, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On July 12, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from a July 13, 2020 merit decision of the Office 

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

Docket No. 21-1091.

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 July 13, 2020 decision was January 9, 2021. As appellant did 

not file an appeal with the Board until July 12, 2021, more than 180 days after the July 13, 2020

OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 21-1091 is untimely filed. The 

Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not offered a reason to explain 

 

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

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. 21-1091 is dismissed.

Issued: July 27, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

3

Id. at § 501.6(d).
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5104 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5104

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow for the deduction 
 for domestic oil related production activities of companies which are 
                  not major integrated oil companies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 21, 2010

Mr. Pomeroy (for himself and Mr. Nunes) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow for the deduction 
 for domestic oil related production activities of companies which are 
                  not major integrated oil companies.

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

SECTION 1. DEDUCTION FOR DOMESTIC OIL RELATED PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES 
              ALLOWED FOR COMPANIES WHICH ARE NOT MAJOR INTEGRATED OIL 
              COMPANIES.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 199(d)(9) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``has oil related 
qualified production activities income'' and inserting ``is a major 
integrated oil company (as defined in section 167(h)(5)(B))''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (9) of section 199(d) of such 
Code is amended by striking ``taxpayers with oil related qualified 
production activities income'' and inserting ``major integrated oil 
companies''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2009.
                                 <all>
```