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

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 1350,CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as chief executive officerof MacroChem Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to theundersigned’s knowledge:

 

1)         theCompany’s report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “  Form 10-Q  “) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2)         theinformation contained in the Company’s Form 10-Q fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 
|   | /s/  David P.  Luci                |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|   |                                         |
|   | President &  Chief Business Officer |
|   | (Principal Executive  and Financial Officer) |

 

Dated:    November 19,2008

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to MacroChemCorporation and will be retained by MacroChem Corporation and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 259

To increase the role of the Secretary of Transportation in administering

section 901 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 20, 1999

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

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To increase the role of the Secretary of Transportation in

administering section 901 of the Merchant Marine Act,

1936, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. TRANSPORTATION IN AMERICAN VESSELS OF

4 GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL AND CERTAIN

5 CARGOES.

6 Section 901(b)(2) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936

7 (46 U.S.C. App. 1241(b)(2)), is amended to read as fol8 lows:

9 ‘‘(2)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of

10 law, the Secretary of Transportation shall have the
2

S 259 IS

1 sole responsibility for determining and designating

2 the programs that are subject to the requirements of

3 this subsection. Each department or agency that has

4 responsibility for a program that is designated by

5 the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to the pre6 ceding sentence shall, for the purposes of this sub7 section, administer such program pursuant to regu8 lations promulgated by such Secretary.

9 ‘‘(B) The Secretary of Transportation shall—

10 ‘‘(i) review the administration of the pro11 grams referred to in subparagraph (A);

12 ‘‘(ii) resolve any question concerning the

13 administration of those programs with respect

14 to this section;

15 ‘‘(iii) provide for penalties and sanctions

16 for violation of this Act; and

17 ‘‘(iv) on an annual basis, submit a report

18 to Congress concerning the administration of

19 such programs.’’.

20 SEC. 2. CONFORMING CARGO PREFERENCE YEAR TO FED21 ERAL FISCAL YEAR.

22 Section 901b(c)(2) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936

23 (46 U.S.C. App. 1241f(c)(2)) is amended by striking

24 ‘‘1986.’’ and inserting ‘‘1986, the 18-month period com25 mencing April 1, 1999, and the 12-month period begin-
3

S 259 IS

1 ning on the first day of October in the year 2000 and

2 each year thereafter.’’.

Æ
ACTIONS OF THE APRIL 1, 2021, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING

VOTED that the Executive Committee recommends that the Board of Regents approves the 

Secretary’s request to execute a lease amendment for a new 5-year lease extension for a 

portion of the existing leased premises consisting of approximately 58,888 square feet of 

administrative office, laboratory, and support space for continued occupancy by the 

Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (“SAO”) at 100 Discovery Park Cambridge, MA.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Annunziata and Senior Judge Hodges 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

CLIFTON RAY WOOTEN 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1059-95-1 BY JUDGE JOSEPH E. BAKER 

 APRIL 9, 1996 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS 

Robert P. Frank, Judge 

 Steven M. Oser (Oser, Twitty & Associates, on 

brief), for appellant. 

 Eugene Murphy, Assistant Attorney Geneneral 

(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Clifton Ray Wooten (appellant) appeals from his bench trial 

conviction by the Circuit Court of the City of Newport News 

(trial court) for possession of cocaine with the intent to 

distribute. The sole issue presented is whether the evidence is 

sufficient to sustain his conviction. Upon familiar principles, 

we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly 

deducible therefrom. Higginbotham v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 349, 

352, 218 S.E.2d 534, 537 (1975). Viewed accordingly, we find the 

evidence is sufficient to support appellant's conviction. 

 Appellant was arrested for driving without an operator's 

license. The arrest occurred in a high-drug-activity area. 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

During a search of appellant incident to his arrest, police found 

1.63 grams of rock cocaine in an orange medicine bottle located 

in appellant's pocket. The cocaine was divided into numerous 

small rocks and had a street value of approximately $100 to $140. 

 Police also recovered a pager and $83 in United States currency 

from appellant. The money was folded separately and divided into 

groups as follows: (1) one ten dollar bill; (2) two five dollar 

bills; (3) two ten dollar bills and a one dollar bill; and (4) 

two five dollar bills, eleven one dollar bills and one twenty 

dollar bill. 

 Detective D. A. Graham (Graham), who qualified as an expert 

in drug distribution, testified that appellant's possession of 

the cocaine, coupled with the attendant circumstances, was 

inconsistent with personal use. Graham based his opinion upon 

his experience working as a narcotics detective, the location at 

which appellant was arrested, the appearance of the folded money, 

the packaging of the cocaine, the division of the cocaine into 

numerous rocks, the presence of the pager, and the fact that 

police did not find any paraphernalia used to smoke rock cocaine 

in appellant's possession. 

 From the totality of the evidence, the fact finder could 

infer beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant possessed cocaine 

with the intent to distribute. Accordingly, the judgment of the 

trial court is affirmed. 

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.4

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

(Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, Michael F. Biehl, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2015; and
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |                                                                                                    
|------------------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 27, 2016
|                   | 
|By:                |  | /s/ Michael F. Biehl                                                                               
|                   |  | Michael F. Biehl
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
# States in the Senate | Florida Senators

**

----

**Introduction****Senators****Timeline**

 1. Elected as David Levy. Changed name to David Levy Yulee in 1846.

 2. Withdrew from the Senate on Jan. 21, 1861. Seat declared vacant on Mar. 4, 1861.

 3. Seat vacant from Mar. 4, 1861 to June 16, 1868 due to Civil War.

 4. Vacancy from Mar. 4 to May 19, 1887. Jesse J. Finley had been appointed on Feb. 28, 1887, but never qualified. Pasco was elected, then appointed in 1893 by the governor while the legislature was not in session, then elected, then reappointed again in 1899, but he lost his reelection bid.

 5. Elected to fill the vacancy for the term beginning Mar. 4, 1899. Reappointed in 1905, then reelected.

 6. Elected for the term beginning on Jan. 3, 2019. Continued to serve as governor during interim.

 7. Seat vacant from Jan. 21, 1861 to June 24, 1868 due to Civil War.

 8. Vacancy from Mar. 4 to May 24, 1897. John A. Henderson was appointed by the governor on Mar. 6, 1897, but was not seated. Mallory was elected to fill the vacancy in 1897 when the state legislature met. He was subsequently appointed for term beginning Mar. 4, 1903, when the state legislature was not in session, and was then elected again in April 1903.

 9. Appointed to the remainder of the term ending Jan. 3, 1975, having been elected to the term beginning on that day.

 10. Appointed to the remainder of the term ending Jan. 3, 1981, having been elected to the term beginning on that day.

        -  Contact 
        -  Leadership & Officers 
        -  Former Senators 
        -  Qualifications & Terms of Service 
        -  Facts & Milestones 
        -  States
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 23-20027 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

Rafael Romero Segura, 

Defendant—Appellee. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:21-CR-15-1 

______________________________ 

Before Smith, Ho, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The government appeals the imposition of concurrent sentences on 

Rafael Segura’s underlying conviction of discharging a firearm during and in 

relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), 

and another federal sentence imposed in a different case for illegal reentry. 

The government asserts that consecutive sentences are statutorily mandated 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

November 3, 2023 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 23-20027 Document: 00516955990 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/03/2023
No. 23-20027 

2 

under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D)(iii). 

The government preserved this argument in the district court; thus, 

we review for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Reyes-Lugo, 238 F.3d 

305, 307–08 (5th Cir. 2001). “A district court abuses its discretion if it bases 

its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” United States v. Castillo, 430 F.3d 230, 238 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). We review questions of statutory construction or interpretation de novo. United States v. Gomez, 960 F.3d 173, 176–

77 (5th Cir. 2020). 

 The firearms conviction was subject to a ten-year statutory minimum. 

See § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii). Under the plain language of § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii), that 

sentence is to be consecutive to any other term of imprisonment, federal or 

state, and the district court lacked discretion, under 18 U.S.C. § 3584, to impose concurrent sentences. See United States v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. 1, 6, 11 

(1997); see also Lora v. United States, 599 U.S. 453, 455 (2023); United States 

v. Krumnow, 476 F.3d 294, 298 (5th Cir. 2007). “Given the straightforward 

statutory command” of a consecutive sentence, Gonzales, 520 U.S. at 6, the 

court erred by ordering that Segura’s § 924(c) sentence run concurrently 

with the illegal-reentry sentence, see id. at 6, 11; see also Krumnow, 476 F.3d 

at 298. 

 For the foregoing reasons, Segura’s conviction is AFFIRMED, his 

sentence is VACATED, and this matter is REMANDED for resentencing. 

Case: 23-20027 Document: 00516955990 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/03/2023
Exhibit 31.5
                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Kevin C. Quinn, President of the Corporation, certify that:
   --------------

1. I have reviewed this quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending
March 31, 2005 of First Chester County Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; and

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report.



August 19, 2005


/s/ Kevin C. Quinn
-------------------
Kevin C. Quinn
President
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-24-00309-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.D.C., a Child

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2024EM500751

Honorable Eric J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 14, 2024

DISMISSED

By order dated July 3, 2024, appellant was instructed to show cause in writing by July 13, 

2024, that either: (1) the $205.00 filing fee for this appeal had been paid; or (2) appellant was 

entitled to appeal without paying the filing fee. Our record contains no evidence that appellant is 

excused by statute or rule from paying the filing fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 20. Appellant was 

advised that if appellant failed to respond within the time provided, this appeal would be dismissed 

for failure to pay the filing fee. See id. R. 5, 42.3(c). Appellant did not respond or pay the filing 

fee. 

Additionally, on July 2, 2024, the trial court clerk notified this court that the clerk’s record 

was not filed when it was originally due because appellant had failed to pay or make arrangements 

to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the record and appellant was not entitled to appeal without 
04-24-00309-CV

- 2 -

paying the fee. On July 3, 2024, this court ordered appellant to show cause in writing by July 13, 

2024, why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. Appellant did not respond. 

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee and for want of 

prosecution. See id. R. 37.3(b); 42.3(b), (c). 

PER CURIAM
# Huey Long: A Featured Biography

**

----

Born in 1893, Huey Long of Louisiana worked as a traveling salesman, earned a law degree in a single year, and then entered public life as a railroad commissioner in 1918. Drawing on a political power base that he built among Louisiana’s small towns and rural districts, he became governor in 1928. Fearlessly, he took on the moneyed interests of Baton Rouge and Wall Street, calling for a massive redistribution of wealth. In 1932, amidst the Great Depression, Long was elected to the Senate, where he gained a national following with his “share-our-wealth” plan and his “Every Man a King” philosophy. Once described as the “most colorful, as well as the most dangerous, man to engage in American politics,” Long was known in the Senate for his filibustering and his flamboyant oratorical style. Nicknamed the “Kingfish,” his ambitions soon turned to the White House. In 1935, at the height of his popularity, Huey Long was assassinated in Baton Rouge.

All Featured Biographies

        -  Contact 
        -  Leadership & Officers 
        -  Former Senators 
        -  Qualifications & Terms of Service 
        -  Facts & Milestones 
        -  States 

### Organizational Chart 

This chart shows the relationships among Senate leaders and officers who manage the flow of legislative and administrative business in the Senate.  

### Contact Your Senator 

Can't find your senator's name in the list of Senators?  Perhaps he or she is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, or a Senator in your State Legislature.

### Biographical Directory 

The Directory provides information about former and current senators.

### Senate History 

Wide-ranging in topic and organized chronologically, these brief essays highlight recurring themes in the Senate's institutional development.
Exhibit 32.2



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), I, Edward F. Lange, Jr. hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 of BRE Properties, Inc. (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of BRE Properties, Inc.



|                     |  |                                                                                     
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 6, 2006 |  | /s/    Edward F. Lange, Jr.                                                         
|                     |  | Edward F. Lange, Jr. Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
#### William F. Stokes, an Infant, by John H. Stokes, his Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, *v.*The Atlantic Avenue Railroad Company of Brooklyn, Appellant.

*Dismissal of a complaint*— when *not vpon the merits.*

Upon ttie trial of an action at Circuit before a jury, the complaint was dismissed at the close of the testimony on the part of the plaintiff, and a judgment of dismissal was entered. No question was submitted to the jury, nor was a verdict directed by the court. Subsequently the defendant made a motion to amend the judgment so that it should appear that the complaint was dismissed upon the merits.

*Held,*that it would be not only irregular but erroneous for the court to dismiss such a case upon the merits, and that the motion to so amend the judgment was properly denied.

Appeal by the defendant, The Atlantic Awenue Railroad Company of Brooklyn, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Kings County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 19th day of March, 1895, denying *3tbe defendant’s motion to correct and amend tbe clerk’s minutes of tbe trial and *tbqpostea*or judgment herein.

Tracy, *Boardman &*Platt, for tbe appellant.

*G. Washbourne Smith,*for the respondent.

Dykman, J.:

This is an appeal from an order made at Special Term denying a motion by tbe defendant to amend tbe judgment in tbis action by inserting after tbe word *“*dismissed ” tbe words *“*upon the merits of tbe action.” The suit was brought for, the recovery of damages for personal injuries to tbe plaintiff. Upon tbe trial at Circuit before a jury upon the close of tbe testimony upon tbe part of tbe plaintiff, tbe complaint was dismissed and judgment of dismissal was entered. No question was submitted to the jm*y nor was tbe verdict directed by tbe court.

In such cases it is not only irregular but would be erroneous for tbe court to dismiss tbe case upon tbe merits, or for a clerk to insert in tbe judgment that tbe dismissal was upon tbe merits. *(Martin*v. *Cook,*37 N. Y. St. Repr. 733.)

All authorities are harmonious upon this subject. The case last cited was an action brought by a servant against bis master to recover damages for personal injuries. After tbe plaintiff bad rested, on motion of defendant’s counsel, the court dismissed the complaint upon the merits. On the appeal from that order the words “ upon the merits ” were stricken out and the court held that a dismissal in such a case was not upon tbe merits. The dismissal of tbe complaint in this case was equivalent to a nonsuit and should be treated in tbe same way.

If tbe counsel for tbe defendant, upon the trial, bad procured a dismissal upon tbe merits, and tbe judgment bad been so entered, it would have been erroneous, as we have already seen, and would have been corrected upon motion.

Tbe order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Pratt, J., concurred; Brown, P. J., not sitting.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
- Home
      - Grants          - Project Grants
        - Technical Assistance Grants
        - Curriculum Adaptation & Training Grant
        - Strategic Initiatives Grants
        - Education Support Program
        - Funding Toolkit 
      - News
      - Grantee Spotlights
      - Priority Investment Areas          - Court Pandemic Response and Recovery Grant Program 
      - Grant Management
      - About SJI          - Board of Directors
        - Executive Director
        - Past Members
        - SJI Budget 

                  - Home
                  - Grants                      - Project Grants
                    - Technical Assistance Grants
                    - Curriculum Adaptation & Training Grant
                    - Strategic Initiatives Grants
                    - Education Support Program
                    - Funding Toolkit 
                  - News
                  - Grantee Spotlights
                  - Priority Investment Areas                      - Court Pandemic Response and Recovery Grant Program 
                  - Grant Management
                  - About SJI                      - Board of Directors
                    - Executive Director
                    - Past Members
                    - SJI Budget 

### Supporting the Nation's Judicial System & the Public it Serves

## Payment Process for Grant Awards

## SJI contracts with the U.S. Department of Agriculture/External Services Branch (USDA/ESB) to manage grant reimbursements. Electronic fund transfers (EFTs) or hard checks will be issued directly from the U.S. Treasury.

An SJI Form R-Request for Advance or Reimbursement must be submitted to request awarded funds. The only change to this form is that the Employee Identification Number (EIN) also known as a “Tax ID” is required on the Form R. Payments from the U.S. Treasury can only be made if an EIN is included on these forms. Failure to include this number will result in delays receiving payments.

## USDA will be responsible for processing reimbursements from the U.S. Treasury on behalf of SJI. Once the proper documentation is received, USDA will process these payments, normally within two weeks.

Current and future grantees can also choose to receive payments via EFT. This is a faster method of receiving payment from SJI. To participate in EFT, SJI will need a completed SF 3881-Automated Clearing House (ACH)/Miscellaneous Payment Enrollment Form.

 

#### CONTACT US

          contact@sji.gov
                       Tel: 703.660.4979

#### HEADQUARTERS

                       State Justice Institute
                       12700 Fair Lakes Circle, Suite 340
                       Fairfax, VA 22033         

Website design by Segue Technologies, Inc.

            -  ** 
            -  **  **