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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

18U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,United States Code), the Trustee of Marine Petroleum Trust (the “Trust”) does hereby certify, to its knowledge, that: 

TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2023 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Trust fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Trust as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.

 

/s/ Ron E. Hooper
Ron E. HooperSenior Vice President on behalf of Argent Trust Company, not in its individual capacity but solely as the Trustee of Marine Petroleum Trust
Dated: May 15, 2023 

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Trust and will be retained by the Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) ofRegulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filedas part of the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Trust, whether made before or after thedate hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. 
**
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

THOMAS CLEVELAND WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-83-RS-GRJ

LT. KARLA JO BROCK,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 81). No 

objections have been filed.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is approved 

and incorporated in this Order.

2. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 70) is 

GRANTED.

3. The case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

4. The clerk is directed to close the file.

ORDERED on February 11, 2013.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
#### Jerome BYRNES, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 19997.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Aug. 9, 1965.

Jerome Byrnes, in pro. per.

Manuel L. Real, U. S. Atty., John K. Van de Kamp, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chief, Crim. Div., J. Brin Schulman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Asst. Chief, Crim. Div., Los An-geles, Cal., for appellee.

Before BARNES, BROWNING and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This cause and appellant’s motion to strike and reject appellee’s brief and supplemental record on appeal having come on for hearing, and the Court having heretofore made its order that the matter be submitted on the briefs on file without oral argument;

*919On consideration whereof, it is ordered and adjudged by this Court that appellant’s motion to strike and reject ap-pellee’s brief and supplemental record on appeal be denied, and that the judgment of the District Court be, and it is hereby, affirmed.
|   | Exhibit      32.1 |
|--------|-------------------|

| /s/  Steven L.      Watson                 |   | /s/  Bobby D.      O’Brien              |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Steven      L. WatsonPresident      and Chief Executive OfficerNovember      5, 2008                                                 |   | Bobby      D. O’BrienVice      President andChief      Financial OfficerNovember      5, 2008                      |
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DONNIE L. WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv238/LAC/EMT

KENNETH S. TUCKER,

Respondent.

___________________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated April 30, 2012 (doc. 36). The parties have been furnished a copy of the

Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to

Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of objections

filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the timely filed objections thereto,

I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by

reference in this order.

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 1) is DENIED.

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 6 day of July, 2012. th

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00238-LC-EMT Document 43 Filed 07/06/12 Page 1 of 1
##### 



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, 2005
and December 31, 2005.
   By:

    /s/ Paul Gerard TurnerName:   Paul Gerard TurnerTitle:     Director
 - 30 -
**Exhibit10.2**

 

**MODIFICATION OF SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE**

 

 

WHEREAS, this agreement is in reference to a loan which is evidence byan instrument entitled Secured Promissory Note, (NOTE), dated February 20,2001, executed by LEE PHARMACEUTICALS for the original principal sum ofThree Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($300,000.00) and payable to theorder of PREFERRED BUSINESS CREDIT, INC.

 

Principal balance outstanding on this Note as of this date is OneHundred and Ninety Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($190,000.00).

 

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned parties agree that the Note shall beamended in the following respect:

 

 

The monthly principal payment of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) willcontinue until this Note is paid in full.

 

The term of this Note shall be extended to May 20, 2004.

 

 

Except as noted above, all the terms, conditions and provisions of saidNote shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

 

 
| Date: February 4, 2003          |         | Loan Number: LEE08       |
|---------------------------------|--------------|--------------------------|
|                            |         |                     |
| PREFERRED BUSINESS CREDIT, INC. |         | LEE PHARMACEUTICALS      |
| a California corporation        |         | a California corporation |
|                            |         |                     |
| By:                             | FARHAD MOTIA |                     | By: | RONALD G. LEE |
| Farhad Motia, President         |         | Ronald G. Lee, President |
|                                 |              |                          |  |  |

 

----
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

PAUL C. JONES,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv127/MCR/MD

ESCAMBIA COUNTY SHERIFFS

OFFICE, et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the court upon plaintiff filing a civil rights complaint (doc. 1) and

a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (doc. 2) on April 27, 2010. 

On April 29, 2010, this court entered an order denying plaintiff’s motion to proceed

in forma pauperis and gave him twenty-eight (28) days to pay the $350.00 filing fee or file

a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis (doc. 4). After receiving no response from

plaintiff, on June 9, 2010, plaintiff was given twenty-one (21) days in which to show cause

why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute (doc. 5). Well over twentyone days has elapsed, and plaintiff has not responded to the order or explained his inability

to do so.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute

and failure to comply with an order of the court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 20 day of July, 2010. th

 

 /s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 
Page 2 of 2

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed

within fourteen days after being served a copy hereof. Any different deadline that

may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only, and does not

control. A copy of any objections shall be served upon any other parties. Failure to

object may limit the scope of appellate review of factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. §

636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11 Cir. 1988). th

Case No: 3:10cv127/MCR/MD
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

ALBERT MULBERRY, JR, 

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00132-MP-GRJ

FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL, WALTER A MCNEIL, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, 

Respondents.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation dated . (Doc. 43). The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and

Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28,

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). The time for filing objections has passed, and none have

been filed. 

Upon consideration, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be

adopted and this case dismissed for failure to prosecute and to keep the Court apprised of

petitioner's address. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated

by reference in this order. 

2. This case is dismissed and the Clerk shall close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of September, 2013

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

JAMES ARTHUR JONES, SR, MARY ANN JONES, OZIAH CARSON JONES, SHANTELL

SHAMEA JONES, KEVIN KENNEDY, MURIELLE KELLY KENNEDY, SANDRA WATTS

KENNEDY, FARINDA OSTEEN, MARIA PARSONS, MICHAEL PARSONS, AARON

JONES STEPHENSON, CARLOS UDAE STEPHENSON,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ

BEAZER EAST INC, CABOT CORPORATION, KOPPERS HOLDINGS INC, KOPPERS

INC,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 80, Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without

Prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) by Plaintiffs. Defendants have served

neither an answer nor a motion for summary judgment. A Telephone Hearing was held on

January 18, 2011 and Defendants stated they had no good faith objection to dismissal without

prejudice. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The request to dismiss in the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, Doc. 80, is

GRANTED. 

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(a)(1)(A)(i).

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 84 Filed 01/18/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ

3. The Clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of January, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 84 Filed 01/18/11 Page 2 of 2
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 17

- 00238

- CR

Corles Andre Giles v. The State of Texas

On a ppeal from the 24th District Court of Jackson County , Texas Trial Cause No. 15

- 9

- 9532

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this caus e on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. March 14, 2019
EXHIBIT 31.2CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERI, Edward D. Moise, Jr. certify that—     1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) of Trinsic, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have—          a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;          b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures as 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons fulfilling the equivalentfunction)—          a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and
Exhibit

10.1

 

 

**STRAIGHT NOTE**

 

 

 
| $300,000 |   | South  El Monte, California | November  15, 2001 |
|----------|--------|-----------------------------|--------------------|

 

 

                Forvalue received, Lee Pharmaceuticals promises to pay Mark DiSalvo or order, atSouth El Monte, California the sum of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS, withinterest from November 15, 2001, on unpaid principal at the rate of twenty (20)per cent per annum; principal is payable monthly, commencing on December 25,2001, with monthly principal payments of $10,000.  Interest shall be calculated on the basis of the unpaid principalbalance daily, based on a 365-day year, actual day month and payablemonthly.  Principal and interest shallbe payable in lawful money of the United States.  If action were instituted on this note, I promise to pay such sumas the Court may fix as attorney's fees. This note is secured by the trademarks on the product brands Sayman®,Cankaid®, and Medicone®.

 

 

 
| November 8, 2001 |   | RONALD  G. LEE                            |
|------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|
| Date             |   | Lee Pharmaceuticals -  Ronald G. Lee      |
|             |   |                                      |
|             |   |                                      |
|             |   |                                      |
|             |   |                                      |
|             |   |                                      |
| November 8, 2001 |   | MICHAEL  L. AGRESTI                       |
| Date             |   | Lee Pharmaceuticals -  Michael L. Agresti |
|             |   |                                      |
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 96-40917 Summary Calendar

__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MIKE ROBERT SALINAS, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-96-CR-114-1

- - - - - - - - - - November 6, 1997 Before JONES, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Defendant-appellant Mike Robert Salinas appeals his guiltyplea conviction and sentence for bank robbery, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d). Salinas has not shown that he was subjected to “plain error” with regard to the district court’s rejection of a Government recommendation that he be sentenced at the bottom of the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range. See United States v. Calverley , 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). HeNo. 96-40917 -2- also has not demonstrated plain error as to his contention that his indictment was invalid because it contained no citations to the Sentencing Guidelines sections under which he might be sentenced. See id .; United States v. Hagmann , 950 F.2d 175, 182 (5th Cir. 1991). Salinas’ argument that U.S.S.G. § 5H1.4, p.s. -- which generally prevents a sentencing court from considering a defendant’s drug or alcohol dependence as a mitigating factor -- is in conflict with 18 U.S.C. § 3577 (renumbered as § 3661) and 28 U.S.C. § 994 is meritless. See United States v. Vela , 927 F.2d 197, 200 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Hatchett , 923 F.2d 369, 374 n.4 (5th Cir. 1991). The district court did not err in determining that Salinas’ use of a simulated bomb during the robbery, rather than a real bomb, did not warrant consideration as a mitigating sentencing factor. See United States v. Cooper , 462 F.2d 1343, 1344 (5th Cir. 1972) (simulated bomb used during robbery is still “dangerous weapon” for purposes of 21 U.S.C. § 2113). Salinas’ contention that he is entitled to a reversal of his sentence because the Probation Office engages in the “unauthorized practice of law” during presentencing proceedings is frivolous. See F ED . R. C RIM . P. 32(b)(6)(B) & (C). Finally, this court lacks jurisdiction to address the district court’s denial of Salinas’s downward-departure request, because Salinas has not suggested or shown that the district court mistakenly assumed that it lacked the authority to depart downward pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.12, on the basis of duress.No. 96-40917 -3- United States v. Burleson , 22 F.3d 93, 95 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.
Case 1:06-cv-14866-AKH Document 5 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

CARL D. MORGAN,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:10cv165-RH/MD

STEVE MEADOWS et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge=s report and 

recommendation, ECF No. 22. No objections have been filed. Upon 

consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the court=s 

opinion. The clerk must enter judgment stating, AThe complaint is dismissed 

under 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B).@ The clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED on December 17, 2010.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge
Case 1:06-cv-15087-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15087-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15087-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15087-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15087-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15087-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15087-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15087-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15087-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15087-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15087-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15087-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15087-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 13 of 13
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

WARREN AIKENS, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v. 4:10cv58-WS

C I MEDICAL CHAIRPERSON, et al.,

Defendants.

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 5)

docketed April 7, 2010. The magistrate judge recommends that this case be dismissed

for the plaintiff's failure to comply with an order of the court and to prosecute this case. 

The plaintiff has filed no objections to the magistrate judge's report and

recommendation.

Upon review of the record, this court has determined that the recommendation

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this order of the court.

2. The plaintiff's complaint and this action are hereby DISMISSED without

prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Page 2 of 2

DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of April , 2010.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1052

___________

Norman L. Miller, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Internal Medicine Specialists, Inc., *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: June 25, 2010

Filed: June 30, 2010

___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Norman Miller appeals the district court’s1

 order dismissing his civil action. 

After careful de novo review, see Strand v. Diversified Collection Serv., Inc., 380

F.3d 316, 317 (8th Cir. 2004), we agree with the district court that Miller’s complaint

did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Accordingly, we affirm the

judgment of the district court. We also deny Miller’s pending motion. 

______________________________

1

The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.