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 William Lyon Homes (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William Lyon, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/    WILLIAM LYON

---

William Lyon

Chief Executive Officer

March 10, 2006



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to William Lyon Homes and will be retained by William Lyon Homes and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
Case 1:07-cv-03474-NRB Document 7 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-03474-NRB Document 7 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-4717

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ANTONIO LEVOWE CLARK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CR-95-65-H)

Submitted: April 17, 1997 Decided: April 25, 1997

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

W. James Payne, POWELL & PAYNE, Shallotte, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, John S.

Bowler, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* See United States Sentencing Commission, Sentencing Guidelines, § 5K1.1 (Nov. 1995). Clark was sentenced in September 1996.

2

PER CURIAM:

Antonio L. Clark appeals his conviction and sentence of 200

months incarceration for possession of crack cocaine, in violation

of 21 U.S.C.A. § 844 (West Supp. 1997). Clark contends that the

Government breached his plea agreement. Finding no reversible

error, we affirm Clark's sentence.

Clark contends that the Government breached the plea agreement

by not giving him an opportunity to earn a reduction in sentence by

providing substantial assistance.* Clark's claim is without merit.

In United States v. Ringling, 988 F.2d 504, 506 (4th Cir. 1993), we

held that a nearly identical plea agreement obligated the Government to debrief the defendant and that the Government's absolute

failure to do so breached the agreement. However, such is not the

case here. Clark was given an opportunity to cooperate, yet he was

ill-tempered and uncooperative and provided no valuable information. The Government was not then obligated to give Clark additional opportunities to provide substantial assistance. Therefore, the

plea agreement was not breached.

Accordingly, we find Clark's appeal without merit, and we

affirm his conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
3

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Lancer
Orthodontics, Inc.'s third quarter 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                         245,083
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,253,245
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (100,306)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,650,811
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,071,785
<PP&E>                                       2,312,981
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,082,121)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,708,384
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          549,399
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    185,242
<COMMON>                                     4,710,614
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,736,871)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,708,384
<SALES>                                      4,381,358
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,381,358
<CGS>                                        2,694,070
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,694,070
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,412
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,502
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,702
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,702
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .004
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .004
        

</TABLE>
*Pursuant to 5 TH 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 April 27, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 04-60753

ELIZABETH GOMEZ, Petitioner, VERSUS ALBERTO R. GONZALES, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(A96-103-766) Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Elizabeth Gomez, a native and citizen of Gambia, petitions this Court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), dismissing her appeal and affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Gomez’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).2

The IJ concluded that although Gomez had been subjected to beatings and harassment by her uncle, the incidents she relayed
were sporadic in nature over a period of years and resulted from family relationship, not from her conversion from Islam to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Accordingly, the IJ determined that Gomez failed to demonstrate that she had suffered past persecution based on her race, religion, or social group and failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. In dismissing Gomez’s appeal and affirming the IJ, the BIA concluded that Gomez failed to show past persecution in Gambia and failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution based on a protected ground under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158, if she were to return to Gambia. The BIA also determined Gomez failed to establish grounds for withholding of removal or relief under the CAT. We review the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo and findings of fact for substantial evidence. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). “The substantial evidence standard requires only that the BIA’s decision be supported by record evidence and be substantially reasonable.” O magah v. Ashcroft, 288 F.3d 254, 258 (5th Cir. 2002). Under this standard, this Court will reverse the BIA’s decision only if evidence compels the contrary conclusion. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994).3

After a thorough review of the briefs, the parties’ oral arguments, and the record on appeal, we cannot conclude that the evidence compels a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA. Accordingly, we deny Gomez’s petition for review essentially for the reasons provided by the BIA. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 1 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 2 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 3 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 4 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 5 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 6 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 7 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 8 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 9 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 10 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 11 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 12 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 13 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 14 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 15 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 16 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 17 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 18 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 19 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 20 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 21 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 22 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 23 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 24 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 25 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 26 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 27 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 28 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 29 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 30 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 31 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 32 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 33 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 34 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 35 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 36 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 37 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 38 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 39 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 40 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 41 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 42 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 43 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 44 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 45 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 46 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 24 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 47 of 47
Case 1:07-cv-03479-AKH Document 12 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-03479-AKH Document 12 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-03479-AKH Document 12 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-15148-AKH Document 6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-15148-AKH Document 6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 2
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2172 

To amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to provide relief from 

surcharges to small businesses and nonprofit organizations. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 18, 2019 

Mr. WICKER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to 

provide relief from surcharges to small businesses and 

nonprofit organizations. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Business Sur5 charge Relief Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RELIEF FROM SURCHARGE. 

7 Section 1308A(a) of the National Flood Insurance 

8 Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4015a(a)) is amended— 

9 (1) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘The Ad10 ministrator’’ and inserting the following: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 2172 IS

1 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para2 graph (2), the Administrator’’; and 

3 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(2) RELIEF FOR SMALL BUSINESSES AND

5 NONPROFITS.— 

6 ‘‘(A) DEFINITION.—In this paragraph, the 

7 term ‘covered small business or nonprofit orga8 nization’ means a small business concern (as 

9 defined in section 3 of the Small Business Act 

10 (15 U.S.C. 632)) or an organization that is de11 scribed in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Rev12 enue Code of 1986 and is exempt from taxation 

13 under section 501(a) of such Code that owns 

14 not fewer than 3 structures that are located on 

15 a single property. 

16 ‘‘(B) RELIEF.—The Administrator may 

17 not impose a surcharge under this section for a 

18 policy for flood insurance coverage under the 

19 National Flood Insurance Program for a cov20 ered small business concern or nonprofit organi21 zation with respect to more than 2 detached 

22 units or buildings located on a single property 

23 if the covered small business or nonprofit orga24 nization certifies to the Administrator that the 

25 savings from the surcharge not being imposed 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 2172 IS

1 shall be used for flood mitigation on the prop2 erty on which the units or buildings are lo3 cated.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Exhibit 23.3

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLUEM ENGINEERS

The undersigned hereby consents to the incorporation by reference by Carbon Energy Corporation Form 10-K to the SEC of data derived from our
reserve reports dated February 20, 2002, relating to the oil and gas reserves of Bonneville Fuels Corporation at December 31, 2001, January 19, 2001, relating to the oil and gas
reserves of Bonneville Fuels Corporation at December 31, 2000, February 17, 2000, relating to the oil and gas reserves of Bonneville Fuels Corporation at December 31, 1999,
February 19, 1999, relating to the oil and gas reserves of Bonneville Fuels Corporation at December 31, 1998 and March 4, 1998 relating to the oil and gas reserves of Bonneville
Fuels Corporation at December 31, 1997 and to the incorporation by reference of our report included in this Form 10-K into Carbon Energy Corporation's previously filed
Registration Statements on Form S-8, File No. 333-50242 and File No. 333-60444.

|                                |  | Very truly yours,        
|------------------------------- |  | -------------------------
|                                |  | RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.
|Denver, Colorado
March 28, 2002 |  |                          



QuickLinks
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 187 (Thursday, September 27, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 54918]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4804]


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

INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION BOARD MEETING


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: October 1, 2007. 9 a.m.-1 p.m.

PLACE: 901 N. Stuart Street, Tenth Floor, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

Status:  Open to the public except for the portion specified as closed 
session as provided in 22 CFR part 1004.4(b) and (f).

Matters To Be Considered:
    <bullet> Approval of the Minutes of the January 22, 2007, Meeting 
of the Board of Directors.
    <bullet> President's Report.
    <bullet> Program Update.
    <bullet> Operations Update.
    <bullet> External Affairs.
    <bullet> Congressional Affairs.
    <bullet> Advisory Council.

Portions To Be Open To The Public:
    <bullet> Approval of the Minutes of the January 22, 2007, Meeting 
of the Board of Directors.
    <bullet> President's Report.
    <bullet> Program Update.
    <bullet> Operations Update.
    <bullet> External Affairs.
    <bullet> Congressional Affairs.
    <bullet> Advisory Council.

Portions To Be Closed To The Public:
    <bullet> Closed session as provided in 22 CFR part 1004.4(b) and 
(f).

    Dated: September 19, 2007.
Jennifer R. Hodges,
General Counsel, (703) 306-4320.
[FR Doc. 07-4804 Filed 9-25-07; 3:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7025-01-M
#### STATE v. GRANT

No. 395P82.

Case below: 57 N.C. App. 589.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 August 1982.
##### 



EXHIBIT 13.2
 BARCLAYCARD FUNDING PLCS OFFICERS CERTIFICATE
 GRACECHURCH RECEIVABLES TRUSTEE LIMITED
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
  1.
    
    I am a duly appointed, qualified and acting Director of the MTN Issuer;2.
    
    I am duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officers Certificate on behalf of the MTN Issuer; and3.
    
    To the best of my knowledge, the MTN Issuer has complied with all conditions and covenants under the
Relevant Documents for the issue of the Investor Certificate for the period between January 1, 2006
and December 31, 2006.
  th
 Name: Jonathon William Albright  Title: Director
 - 30 -
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2021 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act by striking marijuana use, 

possession, and distribution as grounds of inadmissibility and removal. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 27, 2019 

Mr. BOOKER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act by striking 

marijuana use, possession, and distribution as grounds 

of inadmissibility and removal. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Removing Marijuana 

5 from Deportable Offenses Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. STRIKING MARIJUANA USE, POSSESSION, AND DIS7 TRIBUTION AS GROUNDS FOR INADMIS8 SIBILITY AND REMOVAL. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Immigration and Nationality 

10 Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 2021 IS

1 (1) in section 101(a)(43)(B) (8 U.S.C. 

2 1101(a)(43)(B)), by inserting ‘‘other than the dis3 tribution of marijuana,’’ after ‘‘(as defined in section 

4 102 of the Controlled Substances Act)’’; 

5 (2) in section 212(a)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)), 

6 by amending subparagraph (F) to read as follows: 

7 ‘‘(F) MARIJUANA OFFENSES.—Notwith8 standing any other provision of this section, any 

9 offenses involving the use, possession, or dis10 tribution of marijuana shall not be considered 

11 as grounds of inadmissibility.’’; and 

12 (3) in section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) (8 U.S.C. 

13 1227(a)(2)(B)(i)), by striking ‘‘other than a single 

14 offense involving possession for one’s own use of 30 

15 grams or less of marijuana’’ and inserting ‘‘other 

16 than offenses involving the use, possession, or dis17 tribution of marijuana’’. 

18 (b) RIGHT TO REAPPLY OR RETURN.— 

19 (1) REAPPLICATION.—Any alien who was pre20 viously denied a visa to enter the United States as 

21 a direct result of the alien’s use, possession, or dis22 tribution of marijuana may reapply for admission to 

23 the United States. 

24 (2) REISSUANCE.—Any alien who was deported 

25 from the United States as a direct result of the 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 2021 IS

1 alien’s use, possession, or distribution of marijuana 

2 shall be readmitted to the United States and re3 issued the visa that they had at the time of the 

4 alien’s deportation if the alien is not inadmissible 

5 under section 212(a) of the Immigration and Na6 tionality Act, as amended by subsection (a)(2). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### Christian Hanke v. Charles Cobiskey.

1. Burden of Proof—Oro *Him Holding the*Affirmative.—The burden of introducing evidence on any issue is upon him who asserts the affirmative of that issue. So where the defendant admits the indebtedness to have once existed and pleads payment, he has the affirmative of the issue made by his plea.

3. Credibility of *Witnesses—For the*Jury.—The question of the credibility of witnesses is one of fact for a jury, as for the court when a jury is waived.

Memorandum.—Assumpsit for wages. Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. George W. Blanks, Judge, presiding. Submitted at the October term, 1894.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed January 10, 1895

Edwin C. Crawford, attorney for appellant.

William W. Wheelock, attorney for appellee.

*268Mr. Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion oe the Court.

This was a suit for a’balance claimed to be due for wages. Hothing was in dispu fce except the amount that had been paid. It was admitted that the original indebtedness was $1,068.20. The parties themselves were the only witnesses and differed in their testimony only as to how much had been paid on the account. The defendant admitted that there was a balance of $80.20 due to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff claimed $145.70, making a difference between the two of $65.50.

The cause was heard by the court without a jury and judgment was rendered for the balance claimed by appellee, the plaintiff.

It is contended by appellant that the court erred in not holding that the plaintiff had not sustained his claim by a preponderance of the evidence. The rule is just the reverse where payment of an originally admitted claim is relied upon. “ The burden of introducing evidence on any issue is upon him who asserts the affirmative of that issue.” Smith v. Grant, 30 Ill. App. 150.

Here an indebtedness was admitted to have originally existed. The defense was payment down to a sum less than what was claimed by plaintiff, and the affirmative of the issue so presented was upon the defendant. Witner v. Zeman, 30 Ill. App. 195; Johnson v. Breaton, 1 Ill. App. 293.

The question of credibility of witnesses is also raised, but that is a question of fact for a jury, or for the court when a jury is waived.

It is not true, as a matter of law, that unimpeached witnesses aíre of equal credibility, but the credibility of witnesses is always a question of fact. Johnson v. People, 40 Ill. App. 382; same case, 140 Ill. 350.

The court having found the fact upon conflicting evidence the finding will not be disturbed.