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



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mill City Ventures
III, Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas Polinsky, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Joseph
A. Geraci, II, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|May 15, 2013 | /s/ Douglas Polinsky    
|------------ | ------------------------
|             | Douglas Polinsky        
|             | Chief Executive Officer 
|             |                         
|May 15, 2013 | /s/ Joseph A. Geraci, II
|             | Joseph A. Geraci, II    
|             | Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

PRESSLEY BERNARD ALSTON,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 1:10cv107-SPM/AK

FRANK JOHN TASSONE, JR.,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION “FOR A BACKWARDATION”

This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion, received by the

clerk on April 30, 2012, asking for a “backwardation.” Plaintiff’s motion is difficult

to understand but it appears that he is requesting again that he not be required to

pay the filing fee for this case. Plaintiff is required to pay the full amount of the

filing fee in accordance with Title 28, United States Code, Section 1915(b). The

fact that Plaintiff’s case was dismissed before the defendant was served with

process does not relieve Plaintiff of his obligation to pay the filing fee. See

Trupei v. United States, 304 Fed. App’x 776, 779-80 (11th Cir. 2008). 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: Plaintiff’s motion (doc. 20) is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of May, 2012.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Senior United States District Judge

Case 1:10-cv-00107-SPM-AK Document 21 Filed 05/01/12 Page 1 of 1
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WENDY EFFENDY,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-70154

Agency No. A095-629-854

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 16, 2010** 

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Wendy Effendy, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the immigration

judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,

and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

NOV 22 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-70154

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual

findings. Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc). 

We deny the petition for review. 

The record does not compel the conclusion that Effendy established changed

or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the delay in filing his asylum application

beyond the one-year deadline. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5); Ramadan v.

Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 656-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Accordingly, we

deny the petition as to Effendy’s asylum claim.

Based on the different names, birth dates, and places of birth that Effendy

presented in his Indonesian passports and in his child’s birth certificate, substantial

evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See Farah v.

Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003) (upholding adverse credibility

finding where inconsistencies went to key elements of the asylum claim, including

identity); Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir. 2000) (“At the very least, the

record does not compel the opposite conclusion.”). Accordingly, in the absence of

credible testimony, Effendy’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah, 348

F.3d at 1156.
3 08-70154

Effendy fails to raise any substantive challenge to the denial of his CAT

claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues

not addressed in the argument portion of a brief are deemed waived).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

TODD CARLTON SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10-cv-00235-SPM -GRJ

TAMARA FOUNTAIN,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of this cause, pursuant to Rule

41(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 23). The motion is GRANTED, and this

matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DONE AND ORDERED this 17 day of November 2010. 

th

s/Gary R. Jones

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1367

___________________________

Kidane Sante Shulbe

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

The State of Minnesota; Ashley Rose Henke; Safe Haven

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________

 Submitted: October 28, 2015

Filed: November 6, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Kidane Shulbe appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint, in which 1

he sought relief from an order entered in a state-court case and he sought damagesfor

The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United StatesDistrict Judge for the District 1

of Minnesota.
injuries allegedly resulting from that order. He has also filed in this court a motion

seeking the removal of judges who were involved in the state-court proceedings. The

district court dismissed Shulbe’s complaint without prejudice upon concluding that,

under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Upon

2

careful review of the record and Shulbe’s arguments on appeal, we conclude that the

dismissal was proper. See Minch Family LLLP. v. Buffalo-Red River Watershed

Dist., 628 F.3d 960, 965 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo standard of review); see also Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (if court determines at any time that it lacks subject matter

jurisdiction, court must dismiss action); Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus.

Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 283-84 (2005) (discussing Rooker-Feldman doctrine). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Shulbe’s pending

motion.

______________________________

See D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co.,

2

263 U.S. 413 (1923).

-2-
Case 1:10-cr-00003-SPM-AK   Document 4    Filed 01/19/10   Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MARY E. ALLEN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 3:10cv142/MCR/CJK

SCHOOL BOARD FOR SANTA

ROSA COUNTY, FLORIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________________________________________ 

 

PROTECTIVE ORDER 

Before the Court are Plaintiff Doe 2’s Emergency Verified Motion for

Protective Order (doc. 185) and the Allen Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to

that motion (doc. ___ e-mailed to the Court at 3:28 PM on May 24, 2011). The

School Board defendants take no position on this matter. 

Having carefully Doe 2’s motion and memorandum, as well as the Plaintiffs’

Memorandum in Opposition, I conclude that Doe 2,despite having engaged in

discovery through counsel, istruly an involuntary party to thislawsuit, and should not

be required to attend the deposition referenced in the motion. I also note, as support

for this Protective Order, that Judge Rodgers’ recent order as to collateral estoppel

concerning teachers and official parent chaperones (doc. 184), appears to have

substantially narrowed the issues before the Court on the question of challenges to

the continued validity of the entire Consent Decree. Finally, the Allen Plaintiffs, as

represented to the undersigned during the settlement discussion, have asserted the

Case 3:10-cv-00142-MCR-CJK Document 195 Filed 05/24/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

position that conditions which led up to the Consent Decree (those conditions which

would be known to Doe 2), are not relevant in terms of the Allen Plaintiffs’ challenge

in the present suit.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The notice of deposition of Doe 2 for Friday, May 27, 2011 in Pensacola,

Florida, is QUASHED.

2. Should the Allen Plaintiffs re-notice this deposition, the time and place

for such will be cleared with counsel for Doe 2, who will be obligated to handle the

issue in a fair and reasonable manner.*

3. In light of Judge Rodgers’ order on collateral estoppel, and also in light

of the position previously taken by the Allen Plaintiffs concerning the relevance of

the conditions that occasioned the Consent Decree, I will entertain a further Motion

for Protective Order concerning re-notice of Doe 2’s deposition, but only if the parties

are unable to resolve the issue. Nothing in this order should be taken in any way to

signal what my ruling would be on such a hypothetical Motion.

4. I do not find that the Allen plaintiffs’ opposition to the present motion is

unjustified.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 24 day of May, 2011.

th

/s/Charles J. Kahn, Jr.

Charles J. Kahn, Jr.

United States Magistrate Judge

Given the circumstances, perhaps the parties would consider a Saturday deposition. *

Case No: 3:10cv142/MCR/CJK

Case 3:10-cv-00142-MCR-CJK Document 195 Filed 05/24/11 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-02262-WHP Document 11 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-02262-WHP Document 11 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-02262-WHP Document 11 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 3 of 3
* 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. 99-20953

GDQ CORPORATION, An Arkansas Corporation

Plaintiff - Appellee

v. SANFORD P. BRASS, An Individual

Defendant - Appellant

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-97-CV-1936

-------------------- August 11, 2000 Before KING, Chief Judge, and REYNALDO G. GARZA and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Citing Bianca v. Parke-Davis Pharmaceutical Div. of WarnerLambert Co. , 723 F.3d 392, 397 (5 th Cir. 1984), the district court correctly held that the inquiry under 28 U.S.C. § 1359 is guided by the “motive/function” rule, and the effort of defendant-appellant Sanford P. Brass to persuade us that a different rule does or should obtain for assignments fails for the reasons adduced by plaintiff-appellee GDQ Corporation in its appellate brief. The findings of fact of the district court on the question whether the assignment at issue here was improperlyNo. 99-20953 -2- or collusively made to invoke federal jurisdiction are not clearly erroneous. The district court also correctly held that the assignment was valid under Oklahoma law. Brass’s contention that the assignment was champertous, which was made to the district court for the first time in his motion for reconsideration was waived. Even if it had not been waived, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Brass’s motion for reconsideration on this ground as GDQ had a sufficient interest in the action and no officious intermeddling was established. Finally, having argued that Oklahoma law controlled on the statute of limitations issue during the briefing on the summary judgment motion, Brass was in no position to change horses on his motion for reconsideration. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 14

- 00589

- CR

Gavino RIOS

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 423613

Honorable Jason Wolff, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE ANGELINI , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED February 11, 2015.

_____________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

JAMES ARTHUR JONES, 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-AK

KOPPERS INC. et. al. 

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 9, Motion for Extension of Time to File

Response/reply as to the Complaint, Unopposed, by Beazer East Inc, Koppers Inc. Yesterday,

this Court granted defendant Cabot Corporation an extension of time to file a pleading

responsive to the Complaint, until September 22, 2010. Now come the other two defendants,

Koppers Inc. and Beazer East, Inc., to request the same extension, to which Plaintiffs do not

object. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. Motion for Extension of Time, Doc. 9, is GRANTED. 

2. Defendants Koppers, Inc. and Beazer East, Inc. shall file their responses to the

Complaint no later than close of business, September 22, 2010. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 7th day of September, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 11 Filed 09/07/10 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-03525-PKL Document 9-2 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03525-PKL Document 9-2 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 2 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03525-PKL Document 9-2 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 3 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03525-PKL Document 9-2 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 4 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03525-PKL Document 9-2 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 5 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03525-PKL Document 9-2 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 6 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03525-PKL Document 9-2 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 7 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03525-PKL Document 9-2 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 8 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03525-PKL Document 9-2 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 9 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03525-PKL Document 9-2 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 10 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03525-PKL Document 9-2 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 11 of 11
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

TECHSHELL INC., 

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 3:10-cv-154/RS-MD

HARD CANDY CASES, LLC.,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Mediator’s Report (Doc. 179). Pursuant to N.D. Fla. Loc. 16.2 it 

is ordered: 

1. The case is dismissed from the active docket of the court. 

2. In the event that the settlement is not consummated, the court reserves 

jurisdiction, upon motion filed by any party within sixty days of the date of this 

Order, to amend or vacate and set aside this Order and reinstate the case. 

3. The clerk is directed to close the file of this case for administrative purposes, 

and upon the expiration of sixty days without activity, the clerk is direct to 

close the case in its entirety for all purposes. 

ORDERED on March 29, 2011

 /S/ Richard Smoak

 RICHARD SMOAK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
EXHIBIT 12.1


<TABLE>
                                                  FOX FAMILY WORLDWIDE, INC.
                                              RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES



<CAPTION>

                                                         EIGHT                  YEARS ENDED JUNE 30,
                                                         MONTHS        -------------------------------------
                                                         ENDED
                                                     JUNE 30, 1996      1997           1998            1999
                                                     -------------     ------         ------          ------
FIXED CHARGES
<S>                                                     <C>           <C>         <C>              <C>
  Interest Expense, Net of Capitalized Interest     $   624,000     $ 1,938,000   $131,552,000   $164,669,000
  Interest Capitalized During the Period                471,000       1,923,000      4,328,000      4,438,000
  Amortization of Debt Issue Costs                      261,000         288,000      2,453,000      3,253,000
  Portion of Rent Expense Considered Interest           994,000       1,411,000      3,308,000      3,527,000
                                                     ----------      ----------    -----------    -----------
                                                      2,350,000       5,560,000    141,641,000    175,887,000


EARNINGS
  Income from Continuing Operations
    Before Income Taxes                             $49,874,000     $55,007,000   $(21,327,000)  $(64,410,000)
  Fixed Charges, Less Capitalized Interest            1,879,000       3,637,000    137,312,000    171,449,000
                                                     ----------      ----------    ------------   -----------
                                                     51,753,000      58,644,000    115,985,000    107,039,000




RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                         22:1            11:1             --             --

EARNINGS DEFICIENCY                                 $        --     $        --   $(25,656,000)  $(68,848,000)
</TABLE>
# C_2009184EN.01000101.xml

| 6.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

5 August 2009

2009/C 184/01

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4410 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 137,38 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4450 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84695 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,2683 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5316 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,6685 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,945 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 267,00 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7028 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1005 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2045 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1019 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7080 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5507 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,1678 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,1347 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0653 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 762,11 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,3966 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,8433 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3383 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 279,88 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 5,0399 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 68,976 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 44,8946 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,980 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,6141 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,9082 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 68,3320 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4410

JPY

Japanese yen

137,38

DKK

Danish krone

7,4450

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84695

SEK

Swedish krona

10,2683

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5316

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,6685

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,945

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

267,00

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7028

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1005

RON

Romanian leu

4,2045

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1019

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7080

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5507

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,1678

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,1347

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0653

KRW

South Korean won

1 762,11

ZAR

South African rand

11,3966

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,8433

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3383

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 279,88

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

5,0399

PHP

Philippine peso

68,976

RUB

Russian rouble

44,8946

THB

Thai baht

48,980

BRL

Brazilian real

2,6141

MXN

Mexican peso

18,9082

INR

Indian rupee

68,3320

---

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

1

Source

---
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Goldrich Mining Company, (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William Schara, Chief Executive Officer, President and Principal Executive 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:



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 Goldrich Mining Company.







/s/ William Schara                                               DATE:  August 20, 2012

William Schara, Chief Executive Officer and President





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