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





Certification
      of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Rule 13a
      -
      14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C., Section 1350, as
      adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.





I
      hereby
      certify that the accompanying Report of MidWest *One* Financial Group, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of MidWest *One* Financial Group, Inc.








/s/
      Charles S. Howard


Charles
      S. Howard


Chairman,
      President &


Chief
      Executive Officer





/s/
      David A. Meinert


David
      A.
      Meinert


Executive
      Vice President &


Chief
      Financial Officer
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

October 9, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

TRAVIS HODSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

COLORADO MENTAL HEALTH

INSTITUTE AT PUEBLO; THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF COLORADO,

Respondents - Appellees.

No. 15-1182

(D.C. No. 1:14-CV-02879-LTB)

(D. Colorado)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

Before MATHESON, MURPHY, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

This matter is before the court on Travis Hodson’s pro se request for a

certificate of appealability (“COA”). This appeal had its genesis in a 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 habeas petition Hodson filed in federal district court on October 22, 2014. 

On February 6, 2015, the district court dismissed Hodson’s habeas petition for

lack of jurisdiction, concluding Hodson was not “in custody” on the conviction he

was attempting to challenge. See McCormick v. Kline, 572 F.3d 841, 847-48

(10th Cir. 2009) (“The first showing a § 2254 petitioner must make is that he is in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. . . . Section 2254’s in-custody
requirement is jurisdictional.” (quotations and citations omitted)). This court

dismissed Hodson’s appeal from that ruling as untimely. Hodson v. Colo. Mental

Health Inst., No. 15-1101 (10th Cir. May 29, 2015). In the meantime, Hodson

filed in the district court a “Motion for Relief From Judgment” pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 60(b). The district court denied that motion, concluding Hodson had

failed to come forward with any reason to doubt the previous jurisdictional ruling. 

Hodson seeks a COA so he can appeal the district court’s denial of his Rule 60(b)

motion. Spitznas v. Boone, 464 F.3d 1213, 1217-18 (10th Cir. 2006) (holding that

when a district court denies a “true” 60(b) motion, this court “will require the

movant to obtain a [COA] before proceeding with his . . . appeal”).

This court denies Hodson’s request for a COA because the district court’s

conclusion that Hodson was not in custody is not reasonably subject to debate. A

COA will issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the decision

appealed from involves a procedural ruling, this court will not issue a COA unless

“the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable

whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and

that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct

in its procedural ruling.” Spitznas, 464 F.3d at 1225 (quotation omitted). 

Because Hodson has failed to cast any doubt whatsoever on the district court’s “in

custody” determination, he is not entitled to a COA. 

-2-
For those reasons set out above, this appeal is hereby dismissed. 

Furthermore, because Hodson has not advanced a “reasoned, nonfrivolous

argument” on appeal, see Lister v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312

(10th Cir. 2005), his request to proceed in forma pauperis is also denied.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge

-3-
Exhibit 32.2



PREMIER HOLDING CORPORATION

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 this Amendment to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Premier Holding Corporation (the “Company”) for the period
ended December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                              
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                    
|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.



|Date:  |  | November 21, 2017                                                                      | 
|------ |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|       |  |                                                                                        | 
|By:    |  | /s/ Randall Letcavage                                                                  | 
|Name:  |  | Randall Letcavage                                                                      | 
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting 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 Annual Report of Bluefly, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patrick C. Barry,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

     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.

/s/ Patrick C. Barry
-----------------------
Patrick C. Barry
Chief Financial Officer
March 2, 2004
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service 

 National Institute for Occupational

 Safety and Health 

Robert A. Taft Laboratories

 4676 Columbia Parkway 

Cincinnati, OH 45226-1998 

Phone: 877-222-7570 

Fax: 513-533-6826 

January 25, 2012 

Ms. Rachel Leiton, Director 

Division of Energy Employees Occupational 

 Illness Compensation 

U.S. Department of Labor 

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room C-3321 

Washington, District of Columbia 20210 

Subject: Addition of a class of employees from the Pantex Plant to the Special Exposure Cohort 

Dear Ms. Leiton: 

On behalf of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and as required 

by 42 C.F.R. § 83.17(d), I am notifying you of the final effect of the HHS decision to designate a 

class of employees from the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, TX, as an addition to the Special Exposure 

Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 

2000. On December 20, 2012, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. § 7384q(b), the Secretary of HHS 

designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC: 

All employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies, and their 

contractors and subcontractors who worked at the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas, 

during the period from January 1, 1958 through December 31, 1983, for a number of 

work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this 

employment or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one 

or more other classes of employees included in the SEC. 

This designation became effective on January 20, 2012, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. § 

7384l(14)(C). Hence, beginning on January 20, 2012, members of this class of employees, defined 

as reported in this notice, became members of the SEC. 

Sincerely, 

[Signature on file]

 Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director 

 Division of Compensation Analysis and Support 

 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
EXHIBIT 10.26


                             AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE
                 YOUNG & RUBICAM INC. DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN

     WHEREAS,  Young & Rubicam Inc., a corporation  organized  under the laws of
the State of Delaware  (hereinafter  referred to as the "Company"),  established
the Young & Rubicam Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan as of November 19, 1997 (the
"Plan");

     WHEREAS,  Section 11 of the Plan  provides for the amendment of the Plan by
the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company or any other
directors of the Company  designated  as the Committee by the Board of Directors
of the Company;

     NOW,  THEREFORE,  the Plan is hereby amended,  effective as of November 19,
1997, as follows:

     1.   Section 12(f) is amended and restated in its entirety as follows:

     Tax  Withholding or Payments.  The Company and any Affiliate shall have the
     right to deduct from amounts  otherwise payable in settlement of a Deferral
     Account any sums that federal,  state, local or foreign tax law requires to
     be withheld with respect to such payment. Shares may be withheld to satisfy
     such  obligations  in any case where  taxation  would be  imposed  upon the
     delivery of shares,  except that shares issued or delivered under any plan,
     program,  employment agreement or other arrangement may be withheld only in
     accordance with the terms of such plan,  program,  employment  agreement or
     other  arrangement and any applicable  rules,  regulations,  or resolutions
     thereunder.  With respect to any foreign taxes or  withholding  that may be
     due prior to payment in settlement of the Deferral Account, the Company and
     any  Affiliate  shall have the right to withdraw,  in cash or in stock from
     and reduce the Deferral Account by the amount of such taxes or withholdings
     and arrange to provide for the payment of such taxes or  withholding to the
     appropriate taxing authorities.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-31248 Summary Calendar

BHNO PARTNERS, LIMITED, Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS
CANTERBURY JOINT VENTURE, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Louisiana

(96-CV-2498) May 1, 1997
Before WISDOM, JOLLY, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The defendant Canterbury Joint Venture appeals the district court’s determination that the plaintiff BHNO Partners is the rightful owner of all insurance proceeds paid by Allendale Insurance Mutual Corporation under coverage provided by policy number JU028 for casualty loss to certain mortgaged property.1 456 So.2d 599 (La. 1984).

2 First Nat. Bank of Houma v. Bailey , 583 So.2d 559, 563 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1991). 2 After de novo review, we find that, under the unambiguous terms of the mortgage and Allendale policy, BHNO is entitled to the insurance proceeds. Canterbury’s contention that Rushing v. Dairyland Ins. Co. 1precludes BHNO from receiving the proceeds is without merit. The Louisiana Deficiency Judgment Act’s underlying purpose is to protect a debtor from an over-reaching creditor. 2 The provisions of the Louisiana Deficiency Judgment Act and its underlying purpose are inapplicable to the instant case. BHNO is not seeking a deficiency judgment against Canterbury, but is instead seeking insurance proceeds from Allendale. BHNO is entitled. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
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.                  

###### Farm Credit Administration

# AGENCY:

Farm Credit Administration.

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board).

# DATE AND TIME:

The regular meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on May 13, 2010, from 9 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roland E. Smith, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056.

# ADDRESSES:

Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available), and parts will be closed to the public. In order to increase the accessibility to Board meetings, persons requiring assistance should make arrangements in advance. The matters to be considered at the meeting are:

## Open Session

                    A.                     *Approval of Minutes*
    - April 8, 2010.

                    B.                     *New Business*
    - Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking—Farmer Mac Non-Program Investments and Liquidity.
    - Proposed Bookletter—Evaluating Strategies and Risk for Loan Pricing and Structure.

                    C.                     *Reports*
    - OMS Quarterly Report.
    - OE Quarterly Report.

##                     Closed Session *                                    

    - Update on OE Oversight Activities.

Dated: April 30, 2010.

Roland E. Smith,

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.

# Footnotes

* Session Closed—Exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(8) and (9).
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2010-10616 Filed 4-30-10; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
EXHIBIT 31.2
 MANAGEMENT CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 Norberto González
     a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted
in the United States of America.c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  By:
    
    /s/ Norberto GonzálezNorberto GonzálezExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 12, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 128689 & (70)(72) Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan CARSON FISCHER, PLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,
Justices

v SC: 128689 COA: 248167 Oakland CC: 2001-029814-CZ MICHIGAN NATIONAL BANK and MICHIGAN NATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, plai ntiff's motion to file supple mental brief and defendant's motion to include Argument II in its post-argument brief are considered, and they are GRANTED. Leave to appeal ha ving been granted, 474 Mich 986 (20 05), and the briefs and oral argument of the par ties having been considered by the Court, we REVERSE in part the February 8, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals and REINSTATE the November 27, 2002 order of the Oakland Circuit Court granting defendant Michigan National Bank’s motion for par tial summary disposition. Pu rsuant to MCL 440.4406(6), as modified by the parties’ account agreement, Michigan National Bank’s liability is limited to those checks listed in plaintiff Ca rson Fischer, PLC’s post-notification bank statements after September 1, 2000. We REMAND this case to the circuit court for further proceedings not inconsis tent with this order.

We do not retain jurisdiction.

s0509 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 12, 2006

Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 24707]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10581]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0486]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office 
of Management and Budget Approval; Guidance for Industry, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Foreign Governments: Fiscal Year 2010 Medical 
Device User Fee Small Business Qualification and Certification

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a 
collection of information entitled ``Guidance for Industry, FDA, and 
Foreign Governments: Fiscal Year 2010 Medical Device User Fee Small 
Business Qualification and Certification'' has been approved by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Gittleson, Office of 
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., 
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-5156, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3470555a5d51581a735d40405851475b5a745250551a5c5c471a535b42"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1d597c73747871335a74696971786e72735d7b797c3375756e337a726b">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of January 19, 2010 
(75 FR 2874), the agency announced that the proposed information 
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 
U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the 
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0508. 
The approval expires on February 28, 2013. A copy of the supporting 
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet 
at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: April 29, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-10581 Filed 5-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 

**Austin,** Toxam
Dew lb-a.stQwar?tt

**tiau ’**  **lar** nteepret+&la raquiremmt to lay gaE,

**aimme upon**  **the agpUoont**  **being frer**  **oi** any contagiou5ox itieotisnub $&ma505 as daSl;mdnsu ill the llulmmr

stab& **The** bittsr enoloaa(l from the physioian tittHte8 th& She wcmaiz

will always ahow poaitlvsto a **Waaewmn~i test+**  **Th8**thought oaourato u5 that dt8rtIn llota~wa8

issued,

### ii you could iaau l lieease upon them tzcts, tt:it

this a;?glloant

night disaor.tlnue treA..ohtam2 t!m 

### OiseLloe ni(;htthenbeccme

oontngioiie

or iiiroOtha. '.

rre hare no doubt but that the lagialatllre 5cuEht to prm3nt suoh 8 person **from** praotioiw. **under miole**  **9-b.**

**ia ttdnk**  **undw the**  

### ra0t.O given 

### in tb 10tter 

### tramthe phy8ioiuryen would have no lutiarity to lssw 8 l.Lo*n*e to tin applioent. Uosever, ii this phydolanwlll furnishyou with a oerrtlfioat~



### 6peoirfw4 8t8ttng **that** your 8p pliooat 

### is **ire0** rr0m any aontagieu8

### or its60thi8 di8basasas deter&nod by a goxmral axa&mtlcm **and** the l'ioos- blood test, mbue&loa(b) of fbck',~fI aut!iorhyyou to irmm the applloant

You have no rutborltyto **rely** on a phy*loian:e8tatetmt

. ..thatinhl8oplniaatlm ~ppu~rmt~dli not 

### tran5at th8 ubb0808 

### rat in our opinionthat Goon 

### net puett.thm rq&mant of our IJtatute.

It i8 our opiaitm that you do net Lvrn authorityto iuaue a Uauaae to Cuy peraon upaa **the StaM**  **by a**  **pby&oln that**  **Wm** l g pl.N m t ie aW8 a oa rrpa n

Y a a t,

but t h a t

y w a a m b o u n d

00 

### r0uw 8td0tlg a0 rt3qtircrreat 

### 0r 5ub500ti08

(b) 

### 0r Stotia 33 0r ~mi0i6 7s4tb YoIwor~ptrulY AS'TGillJPYO~ALOltTIJU8