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

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                             
|-----------------------------
|This 14th day of March, 2007 
|                             
|/s/ R. Daniel Blanton        
|Chief Executive Officer      
|(principal executive officer)



|                             
|-----------------------------
|                             
|/s/ Darrell R. Rains         
|Chief Financial Officer      
|(principal financial officer)



168
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7353

RICKEY R. LLOYD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RICK JACKSON; HERB JACKSON; DON EDWARDS;

MRS. CUMMINGS; MAILROOM OFFICER; BROWN CREEK

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District

Judge. (CA-97-160-3-MU)

Submitted: February 26, 1998 Decided: March 18, 1998

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rickey R. Lloyd, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Lloyd v. Jackson, No. CA-97-160-3-MU (W.D.N.C. Aug. 29, 1997). 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6336

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ARMISTEAD D. MYERS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:01-cr-00188-CCB-1; 1:16-cv-02371-CCB)

Submitted: August 31, 2022 Decided: September 13, 2022

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Paresh S. Patel, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, 

Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6336 Doc: 21 Filed: 09/13/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Armistead D. Myers seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 motion. 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). “Ordinarily, 

a district court order is not final until it has resolved all claims as to all parties.” Porter v. 

Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Our review of the record reveals that the district court did not adjudicate all of the 

claims raised in the § 2255 motion. Id. at 696-97. Specifically, the court did not address 

Myers’ challenge to his career offender enhancement in light of Johnson v. United States, 

576 U.S. 591 (2015), advanced in his instant § 2255 motion prior to amendment. It does 

not appear that Myers intended to abandon that claim during the pendency of his § 2255 

motion. We therefore conclude that the order Myers seeks to appeal is neither a final order 

nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction and remand to the district court for consideration of the unresolved 

claim. Porter, 803 F.3d at 699. 

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 AND REMANDED

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6336 Doc: 21 Filed: 09/13/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

EXHIBIT E 

EXPENSE DETAIL FOR THE PERIOD 

AUGUST 1, 2019 THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2019 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5081-5 Filed: 12/12/19 Entered: 12/12/19 10:00:47 Page 1

of 2
Category Date Description Amount

Airfare

 Giamanco, Patrick 08/01/2019 Roundtrip coach airfare from Atlanta, GA to San 

Francisco, CA. $624.77

Subtotal for Airfare: $624.77

Hotel

 Giamanco, Patrick 08/18/2019 1 night hotel accommodation at Courtyard in San 

Francisco, CA. $208.67

 Giamanco, Patrick 08/19/2019 1 night hotel accommodation at Courtyard in San 

Francisco, CA. $394.67

Subtotal for Hotel: $603.34

Total $1,228.11

Recapitulation

Category Amount

Airfare $624.77

Hotel $603.34

1

PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Expenses Sorted by Category for the Fee Period

Deloitte & Touche LLP

August 01, 2019 - August 31, 2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5081-5 Filed: 12/12/19 Entered: 12/12/19 10:00:47 Page 2

of 2
## Summary Measures and Graphs

- Individual Provisions
- Cost-of-Living Adjustment

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						A1: Starting December 2024, reduce the annual COLA by 1 percentage point.**

|  |  |
|--|--|
**Exhibit 32**
**CERTIFICATION**
The undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:
(1) The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period endedSeptember 30, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2) The information contained in the accompanying Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.   Date: November 12, 2004 /s/ Mark N. Schwartz   Chief Executive Officer   Date: November 12, 2004 /s/ James S. Murphy   Chief Financial Officer
23
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 46942

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

ESPERANZA ELIDA ESPINOZA

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Filed: July 6, 2020

Melanie Gagnepain , Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Canyon County. Hon. Christopher S. Nye , District Judge.

Appeal, dismissed

.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before HUSKEY, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and LORELLO, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Esperanza Elida Espinoza was found guilty of four counts of felony injury to children

.

Idaho Code § 18

- 1501(1)

. The district court sentenced Espinoza to a unified term of eight years

with three years determinate on each count . Judgment was entered on February 22, 2019, and

Espi noza filed a notice of appeal on April 8, 2019

, (forty

- five days later). Espinoza is mindful of

the fact that the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Nevertheless, Espinoza appeals asserting

that the district court abused its discretion by imposing excessive sentences

. Pursuant to Idaho Appellate Rule 21, failure to file a notice of appeal with the clerk of the

district court within the time limits prescribed by the appellate rules deprives the appellate courts

of jurisdiction over the appeal. Ida ho Appellate Rule 14 provides, in part:Any appeal . . . may be made only by physically filing a notice of appeal with the clerk of the district court within 42 days from the date evidenced by the filing stamp of the clerk of the court on any judgment, order, or decree of the district court appealable as a matter of right in any civil or criminal action.

Therefore, due to the untimely filing of Espinoza ’s notice of appeal, this Court lacks

jurisdiction and this appeal is hereby di s missed

.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2401-2402]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-413]



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

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
[Finance Docket No. 32651]


Eastern Maine Railway Company, J.D. Irving, Limited and New 
Brunswick Railway Company--Petition for Disclaimer of Jurisdiction or, 
Alternatively, for an Exemption From 49 U.S.C. 11343(a)(5)

AGENCY: Interstate Commerce Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Exemption.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission, finds jurisdiction and, under 49 U.S.C. 10505, 
exempts from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11343-11345, 
the continuance in control by petitioners of Eastern Maine Railway 
Company (Eastern Maine) upon Eastern Maine becoming a rail common 
carrier. [[Page 2402]] The exemption is subject to standard labor 
protective conditions.

DATES: This exemption will be effective on December 30, 1994. Petitions 
to reopen must be filed by January 19, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send pleadings referring to Finance Docket No. 32651 to: (1) 
Office of the Secretary, Case Control Branch, Interstate Commerce 
Commission, 1201 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20423; and 
(2) William C. Evans, 901-15th Street, N.W., Suite 700, Washington, DC 
20005-2301.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beryl Gordon, (202) 927-5610. [TDD for 
the hearing impaired: (202) 927-5721].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional information is contained in the 
Commission's decision. To purchase a copy of the full decision, write 
to, call, or pick up in person from: Dynamic Concepts, Inc., Room 2229, 
Interstate Commerce Commission Building, 1201 Constitution Avenue, 
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20423. Telephone: (202) 289-4357/4359. 
[Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through TDD services 
at (202) 927-5721].

    Decided: December 30, 1994.

    By the Commission, Chairman McDonald, Vice Chairman Morgan, and 
Commissioners Simmons and Owen. Commissioner Owen did not 
participate in the disposition of this proceeding.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-413 Filed 1-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999, AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       5,677,258
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   88,498
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    972,201
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,855,310
<PP&E>                                         547,868
<DEPRECIATION>                                 140,564
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,289,744
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          392,574
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        51,092
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,846,078
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,289,744
<SALES>                                         57,499
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               144,336
<CGS>                                           12,420
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,420
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,090,907
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (958,991)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (958,991)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (958,991)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.19)


</TABLE>
#### In re LINWOOD GRADY FITZGERALD.

(Filed 12 October, 1955.)

Appeal and Error § 3—

An appeal from an order requiring *the*resident father *to*have the child in court in order that the question of custody might he considered and determined in a *habeas corpus*proceeding between the parents of the child, separated, but not divorced, is premature and will be dismissed, since the order is interlocutory and affects no substantial right. G.S. 1-271.

Winborne and Higgins, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this -'ease.

Appeal by respondent from *Patton, J.,*June Term 1955, of MeoKleN-BURG.

This was a proceeding to determine the custody of Linwood Grady Fitzgerald, aged 7. The proceeding was initiated 18 May, 1955, by the application of Ann Hudson Fitzgerald, the mother, for writ of *habeas corpus.*This was issued and duly served on Luther Clarence Fitzgerald, the father. The parents of the child are separated but not divorced, and both are residents of Mecklenburg County.

The petition set forth that the child was now in the custody of his father who refuses to permit the mother to have custody of the child ; that the father is not a ñt and proper person to have the custody of the child and that the welfare of the child would be promoted by placing the custody in the mother.

Respondent Luther Clarence Fitzgerald replied admitting that he and the petitioner were residents of Mecklenburg County, but alleged that the child since 20 April, 1955, has been in the care and custody of the child’s paternal grandparents in Fulton County, Georgia.

The matter was heard by Judge Patton 13 June, 1955, on the petition and answer. No other evidence was offered.

The court found that the father was domiciled in Mecklenburg County and the domicile of the child was that of his father. The court entered an order that the respondent have the child before the court, in order that the question of custody might be considered and determined.

Respondent Luther Clarence Fitzgerald excepted and appealed.

*733
      *Maurice A. Weinstein and William J. Waggoner for Petitioner, Ap-pellee.*

*Fred H. Hasty for Respondent, Appellant.*

Per Curiam.

It is apparent that the appeal is premature. The question of the custody of the child has not been considered or determined. The order is interlocutory and no substantial right of the appellant has been affected. G.S. 1-271. *DeBruhl v. Highway Com.,*241 N.C. 616, 86 S.E. 2d 200.

Appeal dismissed.

WiNBORXE and HiggiNS, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

The foregoing opinion was prepared by DeviN, Emergency Justice, while he was serving in place of Winborne, J., who was absent on account of his physical condition. It is now adopted by the Court and ordered filed.
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Solvency provisions | Summary Measures and GraphsUpdated May 3, 2006   |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|

| Retirement Age | Description of Proposed Provision:      Eliminate the hiatus in the normal retirement age (speed up the increase to age 67) and then index the normal retirement age (by 1 month every 2 years) until the NRA reaches age 68 |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                |

*Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions        of the 2005 Trustees Report*

|  |  |
|--|--|

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map |
<PAGE>   1
                                                               EXHIBIT 99(B)(ii)

                                                               February 21, 1997

ANNUAL SERVICING LETTER

The Board of Directors
Greenwood Trust Company and
Wilmington Trust Company:

We have examined management's assertion, included in its representation letter,
dated February 21, 1997, that Greenwood Trust Company ("GTC") maintained an
effective internal control structure over financial reporting as of December
31, 1996, insofar as such system relates to the servicing procedures provided
by GTC to prevent or detect errors or irregularities in amounts that would be
material in relation to the assets of the Discover Card Trust 1991F (the
"Trust") under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement Sections 3.02, 4.03, 4.06,
4.07, 4.09, and 8.07, dated November 1, 1991 (the "Agreement").

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
obtaining an understanding of the internal control structure over financial
reporting, testing, and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of
the internal control structure, and such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our examination provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion.

Because of inherent limitations in any internal control structure, errors or
irregularities may occur and not be detected.  Also, projections of any
evaluation of the internal control structure over financial reporting to future
periods are subject to the risk that the internal control structure may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance
with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

In our opinion, management's assertion that GTC maintained an effective
internal control structure as of December 31, 1996, insofar as such system
relates to the servicing procedures provided by GTC, to prevent or detect
errors or irregularities in amounts that would be material in relation to the
assets of the Trust under the Agreement, taken as a whole, is fairly stated, in
all material respects, based upon criteria established in "Internal Control -
Integrated Framework" issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of
the Treadway Commission.

This report is intended for the information and use of the Board of Directors
and management of GTC, Wilmington Trust Company as Trustee, and the Investor
Certificateholders, and should not be used for any other purpose.

/s/

Deloitte & Touche LLP
* 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

October 25, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41830

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANGEL ARTURO AMAYA-MELGOZA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:05-CR-595-ALL

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

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Angel Arturo Amaya-Melgoza (Amaya) appeals his guilty-plea

conviction of, and sentence for, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by

being found in the United States without permission after

deportation. He argues, in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530

U.S. 466 (2000), that the 37-month term of imprisonment imposed

in his case exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowed for

the § 1326(a) offense charged in his indictment. He challenges

the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony
No. 05-41830

-2-

and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather

than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury.

Amaya’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). 

Although he contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly

decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule

Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi, we have repeatedly

rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres

remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268,

276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Amaya

properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of

Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to

preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.
## Detailed Single Year Tables

- Individual Provisions
- Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable)

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						E3.17: Beginning in 2025, increase the taxable maximum by twice the rate of increase in the national Average Wage Index, but never by less than 3 percent. Provide benefit credit for earnings up to the revised taxable maximum levels.**

### Financial Estimates for the OASDI Trust Fund Program

### Summarized Estimates