alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.01





CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Randy M. Griffin, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Mesa Energy Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Mesa Energy Holdings, Inc.





By:

/s/ RANDY M. GRIFFINDate: September 2, 2011

Name:

Randy M. GriffinTitle:

Chief Executive Officer




I, Ray L. Unruh, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Mesa Energy Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Mesa Energy Holdings, Inc.





By:

/s/ RAY L. UNRUHDate: September 2, 2011

Name:

Ray L. UnruhTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
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 on Form 10-Q of Trevenex Resources, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Raymond Kuh, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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 results of operations of the Company.





|                          |                        
|------------------------- | -----------------------
|Dated:  November 12, 2008 | By: /s/ Raymond Kuh    
|                          | Raymond Kuh            
|                          | Chief Financial Officer



This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### INSURANCE CO. v. POULTRY CO.

No. 105 PC.

Case below: 14 N.C. App. 242.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 1 August 1972.
# C_2009051EN.01000101.xml

| 4.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/1

---

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):

1

2,00 % on 1 March 2009

Euro exchange rates (2)

2

3 March 2009

(2009/C 51/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2615 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 123,64 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4510 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,89575 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 11,4853 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,4826 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,0125 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,961 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 306,84 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7087 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,7350 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2990 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1802 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,9619 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6219 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,7866 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,5303 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9550 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 968,44 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,2300 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,6303 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3747 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 131,69 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6795 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,560 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 45,7697 |
| THB | Thai baht | 45,603 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,0468 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,2631 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 65,5600 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2615

JPY

Japanese yen

123,64

DKK

Danish krone

7,4510

GBP

Pound sterling

0,89575

SEK

Swedish krona

11,4853

CHF

Swiss franc

1,4826

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,0125

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,961

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

306,84

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7087

PLN

Polish zloty

4,7350

RON

Romanian leu

4,2990

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1802

AUD

Australian dollar

1,9619

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6219

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,7866

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,5303

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9550

KRW

South Korean won

1 968,44

ZAR

South African rand

13,2300

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,6303

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3747

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 131,69

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6795

PHP

Philippine peso

61,560

RUB

Russian rouble

45,7697

THB

Thai baht

45,603

BRL

Brazilian real

3,0468

MXN

Mexican peso

19,2631

INR

Indian rupee

65,5600

---

(1)

1

Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

2

Source:

---
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16

- 0670 Filed February 8, 2017

DONTAYE JERMAINE BURTON , Applicant

- Appellant,

vs. STATE OF IOWA, Respondent

- Appellee.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karen A. Romano , Judge.

A n applicant appeals the district court’s denial of his postconviction

- relief application

. AFFIRMED.

Erin M. Carr of Carr & Wright, P.L.C. , Des Moines , for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Thomas J. Ogden , Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.

Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Vaitheswaran, JJ.2

VOGEL, Judge. Don taye Burton pled guilty to second

- degree robbery and second

- degree burglary and was sentenced to two, consecutive ten

- year terms in prison, with a mandatory minimum of seven years. See Iowa Code § 902.12 (2009) . At the time he committed the offenses, Bur ton was twenty
- one years old. He appeal ed his conviction , but that appeal was dismissed as frivolous in 2012 . In 2015, Burton file d an application for postconviction relief (PCR )

. H e asked that the holding of State v. Lyle be extended to offenders who are twenty

- five years old or
younger. 854 N.W.2d 378, 400 (Iowa 2014) (holding all mandatory minimum sentences for juvenile offenders are unconstitutional). After a trial, t he district court denied Burton’s claim. Like th e district court, we are not free to ignore controlling supreme court precedent

. State v. Beck , 854 N.W.2d 56, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 2014). The court in Lyle specifically stated: [O]ur holding today has no application to sentencing laws affecting adult offen ders. Lines are drawn in our law by necessity and are incorporated into the jurisprudence we have developed to usher the Iowa Constitution through time. This case does not move any of the lines that currently exist in the sentencing of adult offenders. 854 N.W.2d at 403 . Contrary to Burton’s suggestion on appeal, nothing in the supreme court’s recent decision of State v. Sweet undermines this holding. 879 N.W.2d 811 (Iowa 2016) (concluding a sentence of life without the possibility of parole for a juv enile offender violates the Iowa Constitution). We thus summarily affirm the district court’s denial of Burton’s PCR application pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(a), (c), and (d).
AFFIRMED.
| (1)   | the      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Jumpkicks, Inc. for the quarter ended      January 31, 2008 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the      quarter ended January 31, 2008, fairly presents in all material respects,      the financial condition and results of operations of Jumpkicks,      Inc.. |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/Richard Douglas                                                         |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                            |
| Name:  | Richard      Douglas                                                            |
|   |                                                                            |
| Title: | Principal      Executive Officer, Principal      Financial Officer and Director |
|   |                                                                            |
| Date:  | April      4, 2008                                                              |
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

KARL EDWARD BRAITHWAITE,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:09cv341/WS/EMT

ESCAMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEP’T, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the court upon referral from the clerk. Plaintiff commenced this action

by filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). On August 25, 2010, Plaintiff

was given thirty (30) days in which to file a fourth amended complaint (see Doc. 23). Plaintiff failed

to file an amended complaint; therefore, on September 27, 2010, this court entered an order giving

Plaintiff to show cause within twenty (20) days, why this action should not be dismissed for failure

to comply with an order of the court (Doc. 25). The time for compliance with the show cause order

has now elapsed and Plaintiff has not filed a fourth amended complaint.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with an

order of the court.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 28th day of October 2010.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

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 (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear

on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only. A copy of objections shall be

served upon all 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 (11th Cir.

1988).

Case No: 3:09cv341/WS/EMT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

vs. Case No. 3:10cr47/LAC

ANTHONY DANI FOUNTAIN

_____________________________________________________________________

ACCEPTANCE OF PLEA OF GUILTY

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, to which

there have been no timelyobjections, and subject to this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement

pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, the plea of guilty of the Defendant, ANTHONY DANIFOUNTAIN,

to Counts I and II of the Indictment is hereby ACCEPTED. All parties shall appear before this

Court for sentencing as directed.

DONE and ORDERED this 30 day of June, 2010. th

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-15-00301-CR

CHARLES LEE

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

167th District Court of Travis County, Texas

Trial Cause No. D-1-DC-99-995654

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause 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.

September 1, 2016
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee

# ACTION:

 Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee will meet in closed session on December 11, 2007 from 0800 hrs until 2030 and December 12, 2007 from 0730 hrs until 1430 at the Pentagon.

The purpose of the meeting is to provide the Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy with independent, informed advice on major matters of defense policy. The Board will hold classified discussions on national security matters.

In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law No. 92-463, as amended [5 U.S.C. 552B(c)(1)(1982)], and that accordingly this meeting will be closed to the public.

Dated: November 14, 2007.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 07-5755 Filed 11-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000-06-M
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section is 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine Special Emphasis Panel Omics.                    

*Date:*                         December 7, 2007.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Martina Schmidt, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Office of Scientific Review, National Center for Complementary, & Alternative Medicine, NIH, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Suite 401, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-3456,                         *schmidma@mail.nih.gov.*

Dated: November 2, 2007.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-5621 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

CITY OF PANAMA CITY BEACH, a

municipality created by the State of

Florida,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10cv150/RS-EMT

A. G. EDWARDS TRUST COMPANY FSB,

successor by merger to A. G. EDWARDS TRUST

COMPANY, a Florida corporation, as successor

trustee of the Claudia T. Pledger Trust; A. DENNIS

PLEDGER; GERALD T. PLEDGER; ALVIN’S

STORES, INC.; LAMAR CORPORATION;

AMSOUTH BANK OF FLORIDA; J. H. SHERMAN,

JR.; SIGNAL HILL GOLF COURSE, INC.; PEGGY

BRANNON, as Bay County Tax Collector; 

ZANE SPITZER, as Bay County Property

Appraiser; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

acting through its agency the Internal Revenue

Service Department of Treasury,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is Plaintiff’s Request For Recusal (Doc. 27). I recuse myself.

ORDERED on September 2, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

BILLY SCHINDEWOLF,

DORIS SCHINDEWOLF,

and SCHINDEWOLF LIVING 

TRUST, DATED AUGUST 8,

2001,

Plaintiffs,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10cv145/RS-MD

SEYMOUR CONSTRUCTION,

INC. and SCOTT SEYMOUR,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the parties’ notice of mediation (Doc. 51). The parties shall 

file their mediation report not later than March 2, 2011. 

ORDERED on February 28, 2011.

/s/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:07-cv-03478-AKH Document 14 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-03478-AKH Document 14 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-03478-AKH Document 14 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 3 of 3
#### FLIPPIN v. JARRELL

No. 40 PC.

No. 129 (Spring Term).

Case below: 44 N.C. App. 518.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 1 April 1980. Motion of defendant to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question denied 1 April 1980.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ROBERT PAUL KNOWLES,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-00166-RH-GRJ

GREGORY DAVIS, et al,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Third Amended Motion for Leave

to Proceed in Forma Pauperis with financial affidavit. (Doc. 10). In his affidavit Plaintiff

does not list a residential address but only a mailing address. Further, Plaintiff does not

disclose in his affidavit any income, obligation for payment of rent, expenses, or any

source of funds from any third party. The Court is, therefore, unable to determine the

amount of monthly expenses Plaintiff incurs for the necessities of life, such as food and

shelter. The burden is upon the Plaintiff to demonstrate that he is unable to pay the

filing fee. Because Plaintiff’s affidavit fails to explain adequately Plaintiff’s financial

situation, including disclosing his current living arrangements, the Court is unable to

grant the motion to proceed in forma pauperis until Plaintiff provides additional

information or an adequate explanation of Plaintiff’s current financial situation. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The Clerk shall mail to Plaintiff a blank financial affidavit which he shall

complete in full and return on or before December 20, 2010.

2. Failure to provide complete information or to return the financial affidavit
Page 2 of 2

within the time provided will result in a recommendation that this cause be dismissed.

3. No further action will be taken in this case and the Court will reserve its ruling

on the pending motion for leave to proceed (Doc. 8) until the financial affidavit is

returned.

DONE AND ORDERED this 6 day of December 2010. 

th

s/Gary R. Jones

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case No: 5:10-cv-00166-RH -GRJ
#### BETTY JANE TWEED and Husband, CARE TWEED, v. CHARLES TAYLOR, LAWRENCE L. TAYLOR and Wife, DORIS TAYLOR.

(Filed 20 October, 1965.)

Appeal by defendants from *McLean, J.,*March-April, 1965, Regular Civil Session of Madison.

This is a suit to restrain, and to recover damages for alleged trespasses by defendants on land of plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants have entered upon their land located in No. 3 Township, Madison County, built a stone wall thereon and begun construction of a concrete-block building which is partially on their land, and the wall and foundation of the building are situate in Cody (or Ray) Branch so as to divert the waters of the branch onto land not theretofore in the bed of the stream. Defendants deny all material allegations of the complaint.

Pursuant to an order of the court a survey was made and maps drawn showing the contentions of the parties. It was stipulated that plaintiffs and defendants own adjoining lands, the location of a boundary line is in dispute, and the descriptions of the disputed boundary in the deeds of the respective parties are identical. The parties agreed upon the issues to be submitted to the jury.

The jury answered the issues in substance as follows: (1) The true boundary line is “A to B” (plaintiffs’ contention as shown on the court map). (2) Defendants diverted the waters of Cody Branch as alleged. (3) Plaintiffs are entitled to recover $100 damages. Judgment was entered in accordance with the verdict and injunctive relief was granted.

*492
      *Mashbum & Huff for 'plaintiffs.*

*A. E. Leake for defendants.*

Per CuRIam.

The issues, agreed to by the parties and submitted to the jury, are sufficient to dispose of all material controversies arising on the pleadings and to support a final judgment. We find no error in the admission or exclusion of evidence. The evidence amply supports the verdict. The issues were submitted to the jury upon instructions free of prejudicial error.

No error.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

FRANCISCO F. HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10cv23/RS-AK

WHITFIELD, J. BROWN, and WALTERS,

DefendantS.

__________________________________/

ORDER

Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration (Doc. 13), which is titled “Order Denying

Defendants’ Motion For Dismissal”, is denied.

ORDERED on May 7, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE