alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 annual report of Xenacare Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Frank Rizzo, hereby certify, 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.

| |                        
| | -----------------------
| |                        
| |                        
| |                        
| | /s/ Frank Rizzo        
| | Frank Rizzo            
| | Chief Executive Officer
| | April 15, 2010
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 Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-03-2016]

An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Salt Lake City Corporation, grantee of FTZ 30, requesting subzone status for the facility of Cabela's Inc., located in Tooele, Utah. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on January 20, 2016.

The proposed subzone (32.4 acres) is located at 2000 West Cabela's Way, Tooele, Utah. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time.

In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Christopher Kemp of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the FTZ Board.

Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is March 7, 2016. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to March 21, 2016.

                    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via                     *www.trade.gov/​ftz.*

                    For further information, contact Christopher Kemp at                     *Christopher.Kemp@trade.gov*                     or (202) 482-0862.                

Dated: January 20, 2016.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2016-01575 Filed 1-25-16; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
EX-35.1
(logo) EMC
Mortgage Corporation


ITEM 1123 ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION


The undersigned officers of EMC Mortgage Corporation ("EMC") as servicer
pursuant to the Bear Stearns Mortgage Funding Trust 2007-AR2 Agreement (the
"Agreement") hereby certify that:

1.   A review of EMC's activities during the period from and including January
     1, 2007 through and including December 31, 2007 (the "Reporting Period")
     and EMC's performance under the Agreement has been made under my
     supervision.

2.   To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, EMC has fulfilled all of
     its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the
     Reporting Period.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 12th
day of March 2008.

By: /s/ David B. Little
David B. Little
Executive Vice President
Default Administration

/s/ William Glasgow Jr.
William Glasgow Jr.
Executive Vice President
Enterprise Operations Services

/s/ Jenna Kemp
Jenna Kemp
Executive Vice President
Investor Administration


(logo) MBA Member
Mortgage Bankers
Association on America

2780 Lake Vista Drive, Lewisville, Texas 75067
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1292190 Lewisville, Texas 75029-2190
#### Leander Davis, Appellant, v. Levi G. Hasbronck and others, Respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Opinion by

Boardman, J.
Opinion issued August 23 , 201 2

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

NO. 01

- 11

- 00 172

- CV

SHEARETTA COLE AND ADRIAN COLE , Appellant s

V.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL I INC. TRUST 2006

- HE3 , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 3

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 979725



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants, Shearetta Cole and Adrian Cole, have failed to timely file a brief.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6( a ) ( governing time to file brief )
, 38.8(a) ( governing failure2

of appellant to file brief). After being notified that this appeal was subject to
dismissal, appellant s did not respond. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(b) (allowing
involuntary dismissal of case).

We dismiss t he appeal for want of prosecution for failure to timely file a brief.
We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Bland, Massengale, and Brown

.
#### George H. Paine, Appellant, v. The Trustees and Inhabitants of the Village of Delhi, Respondents

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Opinion by

Hardin, P. J.
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 Veterans Affairs

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation will meet on June 21-22, 2010, at the St. Regis Washington, DC, 923 16th and K Streets, NW., from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day. The meeting will be held in the Carlton Ballroom. The meeting is open to the public.

The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the maintenance and periodic readjustment of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities. The Committee is to assemble and review relevant information relating to the nature and character of disabilities arising from service in the Armed Forces, provide an ongoing assessment of the effectiveness of the rating schedule and give advice on the most appropriate means of responding to the needs of veterans relating to disability compensation.

On both days, the Committee will receive briefings on issues related to compensation for Veterans with service-connected disabilities and other Veteran benefits programs. Time will be allocated for receiving public comments on the afternoon of June 22. Public comments will be limited to three minutes each. Individuals wishing to make oral statements before the Committee will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis. Individuals who speak are invited to submit 1-2 page summaries of their comments at the time of the meeting for inclusion in the official meeting record.

                    The public may submit written statements for the Committee's review to Ms. Ersie Farber, Designated Federal Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration (211A), 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420. Any member of the public wishing to attend the meeting or seeking additional information should contact Ms. Farber at (202) 461-9728 or                     *Ersie.farber@va.gov.*

Dated: May 28, 2010.

By Direction of the Secretary:

Vivian Drake,

Acting Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2010-13418 Filed 6-3-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
#### Sarah G. Ferris, Executrix, etc., v. Benjamin G. Disbrow, Executor, etc.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs. Order allowing costs affirmed. Opinions by

Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J.;

Dykman, J., not sitting.
Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of SAVVIS Communications Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on
the date hereof:



|(a) |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: and
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(b) |  | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    ROBERT A.
MCCORMICKRobert A. McCormick Chief Executive OfficerMay 15, 2003
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 
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 Advanced Battery Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarter period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Sharon Xiaorong Tang, Chief Financial Officer of Advanced Battery Technologies, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my 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 operations of the Advanced Battery Technologies, Inc. as of and for the period covered by the Report.  Pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, this certification is being furnished and is not deemed filed. Dated:  November 8, 2007/s/ Sharon Xiaorong TangSharon Xiaorong Tang
Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-10890

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROMELIA FLORES, also known as Romy Flores, also known as Romy 

Duarte, also known as Tomelia Flores,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:17-CR-42-2

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Romelia Flores has moved for leave 

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Flores has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 24, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-10890 Document: 00514970687 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2019
No. 18-10890

2

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 18-10890 Document: 00514970687 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/24/2019
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 64044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30317]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP94-197-008]


Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

December 7, 1995.
    Take notice that on November 30, 1995, Tennessee Gas Pipeline 
Company (Tennessee) filed a limited application pursuant to Section 4 
of the Natural Gas Act, and the Rules and Regulations of the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission promulgated thereunder, to adjust the gas 
supply realignment costs (``GSR costs'') previously reported in 
Tennessee's past GSR quarterly filings to comply with the Commission's 
``Order Accepting Tariff Sheets Subject to Conditions'' issued November 
1, 1995 in Docket Nos. RP94-197-005, RP93-151-007, RP94-425-003, and 
RP94-425-004. Tennessee states that the tariff sheets identified below 
set forth Tennessee's revised GSR-related charges:

Third Revised Sheet No. 20
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 21
Seventh Revised Sheet No. 21A
Twelfth Revised Sheet No. 22
Seventh Revised Sheet No. 22A
Third Revised Sheet No. 23
Original Sheet No. 23A
Twelfth Revised Sheet No. 24
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 25
Third Revised Sheet No. 26
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 26A
Third Revised Sheet No. 26B
Third Revised Sheet No. 27
First Revised Sheet No. 29A
Seventeenth Revised Sheet No. 30

    Tennessee states that copies of the filing have been mailed to all 
affected customers of Tennessee and interested state regulatory 
commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest the filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426 in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure. Pursuant to Section 154.210 of the 
Commission's Regulations, all such protests must be filed not later 
than 12 days after the date of the filing noted above. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-30317 Filed 12-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 7050** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. SHERMAN LITTLE , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dist rict of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 2:07

- cr - 00008

- HCM

- FBS

- 1 )

Submitted : November 17, 2011 Decided: November 23, 2011

Before KING, DAVIS, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opin ion
. Sherman Little, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Sherman Little appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to dismiss the indictment underlying his 2007 federal convictions . Little claimed that a defect in his indictment deprived the district court of jurisdiction to convict and sentence him. The district court denied Little’s motion , and we affirm.
A defective indictment will not deprive a district court of jurisdiction in a criminal case , United States v.
Cotton , 535 U.S. 625, 629

- 31 (2002) , and Little’s valid guilty plea waived all prior non

- jurisdictional defects. See Tollett

v . Henderson , 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973); United States v. Moussaoui , 591 F.3d 263, 279 (4th Cir. 2010)
. Therefore , we conclude that the district court correctly denied Little’s motion. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the fa cts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7130

BRANDEN MAURICE LABARGE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

J. C. STREEVAL, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Roanoke. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:22-cv-00476-JPJ-PMS)

Submitted: November 21, 2022 Decided: December 1, 2022 

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DIAZ, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Branden Maurice LaBarge, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7130 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/01/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Branden Maurice LaBarge seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order granting the 

Government’s motion for a stay and the district court’s order denying LaBarge’s motion to 

reconsider. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 

and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); 

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The orders LaBarge 

seek to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. 

Accordingly, we deny LaBarge’s emergency petition for permission to appeal and dismiss 

the appeal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.*

 We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

* To the extent LaBarge seeks authorization from this Court to pursue an 

interlocutory appeal, he must first obtain such authorization from the district court. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1292(b).

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7130 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/01/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-5153

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KAMAL MABREY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.

(CR-03-511-RDB)

Submitted: April 26, 2006 Decided: June 16, 2006

Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, John H. Chun, Assistant

Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland; Sherri Keene, Staff

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenbelt,

Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States

Attorney, John F. Purcell, Assistant United States Attorney,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Kamal Mabrey pled guilty to being a felon in possession

of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). The

district court sentenced him as an armed career criminal under 18

U.S.C.A. § 924(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005), to 188 months of

imprisonment, the bottom of the then-mandatory sentencing

guidelines range. We affirmed Mabrey’s conviction, vacated his

sentence, and remanded for resentencing in light of United

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). See United States v.

Mabrey, 150 F. App’x 274 (4th Cir. 2005) (No. 04-5077)

(“Mabrey I”). 

On remand, the district court resentenced Mabrey to a

180-month prison term, the statutory mandatory minimum sentence.

Mabrey appeals the sentence imposed on remand, asserting that the

district court erred in concluding that his second-degree burglary

conviction under Maryland law qualified as a violent felony for

purposes of sentencing him as an armed career criminal and that his

Sixth Amendment rights were violated because the predicate offenses

were neither submitted to a jury nor admitted by him. Mabrey

acknowledges, however, that he is precluded from raising these

issues in this appeal because he litigated them in Mabrey I. 

In Mabrey I, we rejected the claims Mabrey now seeks to

raise in this appeal. Thus, we find that Mabrey’s claims are

barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine and that none of the
- 3 -

exceptions applies. See United States v. Aramony, 166 F.3d 655,

661 (4th Cir. 1999) (discussing doctrine and exceptions thereto);

see also S. Atl. Ltd. P’ship of Tenn. v. Riese, 356 F.3d 576, 583

(4th Cir. 2004) (discussing mandate rule). Accordingly, we affirm

Mabrey’s sentence. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED