alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32
                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Salisbury Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending June 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John F.
Perotti,  Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  and I, John F. Foley,  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 result of
                  operations of the Company.

Date: August 11, 2008

/s/  John F. Perotti                             /s/  John F. Foley
--------------------                             ------------------
      John F. Perotti                                 John F. Foley
      Chief Executive Officer                         Chief Financial Officer



                                       23
Ex-99.4 Aggregate Statement of Principal and Interest Distribution to
        Certificatesholders.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
    CLASS               INTEREST                 PRINCIPAL                 ENDING BALANCE
    -----               --------                 ---------                 --------------
<S>                 <C>                        <C>                     <C>
A                   $1,218,399.69              $2,581,035.72           $209,314,564.28
B-1                    $39,426.02                  $5,386.10             $6,851,313.90
B-2                    $22,998.27                  $3,141.86             $3,996,558.14
B-3                    $13,142.20                  $1,795.39             $2,283,804.61
B-4                     $9,199.42                  $1,256.76             $1,598,643.24
B-5                     $3,942.77                    $538.63               $685,161.37
B-6                     $6,571.18                    $897.72             $1,141,916.28
PO                          $0.0                   $4,360.63                $86,126.37
R                           $0.58                    $100.00                     $0.00
X                     $160,614.41                      $0.00           $222,864,136.00
                    $1,474,294.54              $2,598,512.81
</TABLE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 07, 2018.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, June 07, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18D0472. GARRICK TREMAINE LYONS v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

SU17CR0576
February 21 , 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

MARVIN DWAYNE SMITH , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 00149

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below, and having inspected the record, the Court holds there was no error in the judgment requiring reversal, but there was error in the judgment as entered, which is capable of reformation by this Court. Therefore, the judgment is REFORMED , to delete the specific amount of costs. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED as REFORMED

.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-20-00390-CV

IN RE CARROLL INDEPENDENT 

SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF 

TRUSTEES; MICHELLE MOORE, IN HER 

CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE AND 

PRESIDENT OF THE CARROLL 

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 

BOARD OF TRUSTEES; SHERI MILLS, IN 

HER CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE 

CARROLL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL 

DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES; AND

TODD CARLTON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS 

TRUSTEE OF THE CARROLL 

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Relators

§

§

§

§

§

Original Proceeding

153rd District Court of Tarrant

County, Texas

Trial Court No. 153-319405-20

October 14, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice 

Birdwell

JUDGMENT

This court has considered relators’ petition for writ of mandamus and holds 

that the petition should be dismissed. It is ordered that the petition for writ of 

mandamus is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Wade Birdwell

 Justice Wade Birdwell
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4395 

To allow grantees under the HIV Health Care Services Program to allocate 

a portion of such funding for services to individuals at risk of acquiring 

HIV. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 14, 2022 

Mr. SCOTT of Florida (for himself and Mr. LUJA ́N) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To allow grantees under the HIV Health Care Services Program to allocate a portion of such funding for services 

to individuals at risk of acquiring HIV. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ryan White PrEP 

5 Availability Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4395 IS

1 SEC. 2. SERVICES FOR INDIVIDUALS AT RISK OF ACQUIR2 ING HIV. 

3 Title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act (42 

4 U.S.C. 300ff–11 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 

5 the following: 

6 ‘‘PART H—SERVICES FOR INDIVIDUALS AT RISK 

7 OF ACQUIRING HIV 

8 ‘‘SEC. 2696. INDIVIDUALS AT RISK OF ACQUIRING HIV. 

9 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Any eligible area, State, or pub10 lic or private nonprofit entity that receives a grant under 

11 part A, B, C, or D may use program income received from 

12 such a grant to provide to individuals who are at risk of 

13 acquiring HIV— 

14 ‘‘(1) drugs and biological products for pre-expo15 sure prophylaxis (PrEP) prescribed by a professional 

16 who is authorized under State or other applicable 

17 law to write prescriptions, consistent with Federal 

18 guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control 

19 and Prevention; 

20 ‘‘(2) medical, laboratory, and counseling serv21 ices related to such drugs and biological products; 

22 and 

23 ‘‘(3) referrals and linkages to appropriate serv24 ices for the prevention of HIV, as prescribed to eligi25 ble individuals who are at risk of acquiring HIV. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 4395 IS

1 ‘‘(b) VOLUNTARY PROGRAM.—Nothing in this section 

2 shall be construed to permit any eligible area, State, or 

3 public or private nonprofit entity to allocate any grant 

4 funds received under this title for the purposes described 

5 in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a).’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
#### J. G. RUTLEDGE, Jr. v. JOHN W. FITZGERALD.

(Filed 1 May, 1929.)

Appeal and Error J a — Findings of fact presumed correct on appeal.

Where a judgment of nonsuit has been granted, and thereafter the trial judge has restored the cause to the docket upon the ground of excusable neglect and a meritorious defense, the appellant must aptly request the trial court to find the facts upon which the judgment is based, and when this has not been done, and they do not appear of record, it will be presumed that they support the judgment rendered and it will be affirmed on appeal.

Appeal by defendant from *Oglesby, J.,*at September Term, 1928, of MeckleNbueg.

Affirmed.

The following judgment was rendered in the court below: “This cause coming on before his Honor, John M. Oglesby, presiding at the September Term, 1928, Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, on a *164motion to set aside the judgment obtained on 19 June, 1928, by John "W. Fitzgerald, against J. Gr. Rutledge, Jr., and W. R. Rutledge, and the same being heard: It is hereby ordered, decreed and adjudged, that the said judgment be, and the same is hereby set aside in the discretion of the court on the ground of excusable neglect and surprise, and also for meritorious cause shown to the court, and that the judgment of nonsuit rendered therein also be set aside on account of excusable neglect and surprise, and that the said judgment herein is ordered to be canceled and stricken from the docket, that the said' original cause be restored to the trial docket for trial.”

The defendant excepted and assigned error to the judgment rendered and appealed to the Supreme Court.

*John G. Carpenter for plaintiff.*

*Jimison & Abernathy for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

The defendant did not request the court below to find the facts upon which the rulings of the court below were based. In the absence of such finding, it is presumed that the court below, upon proper evidence, found facts sufficient to support the judgment. The whole matter is fully discussed and decisions cited in *Holcomb v. Holcomb,*192 N. C., 504; *Helderman v. Mills Co.,*192 N. C., 626. See *Lumber Co. v. Anderson,*196 N. C., 474; *Realty Corp. v. Fisher,*196 N. C., 503; *Coach Co. v. Griffin,*196 N. C., 559. The judgment of the court below is

Affirmed.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

October 18, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2004

Hayakawa Electronics America, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
#### MARY SIMMONS ANDREWS, by Her Next Friend, JOSEPH B. CHESHIRE, ALEX A. MARKS, and LAWRENCE H. MARKS, v. GURNEY P. HOOD, Commissioner of Banks.

(Filed 1 January, 1935.)

Appeal by plaintiffs from *Grady, J.,*at May Term, 1934, of Wake.

Reversed.

From judgment that neither of the plaintiffs is entitled to preferential payment of his claim against the North Carolina Bank and Trust Company, each of the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court.

*Murray Allen for plaintiffs.*

*Broolcs, McLendon & Holderness for defendant.*

CoNNOB, J.

The pertinent facts in this case are identical with those in *Andrews v. Hood, Comr., ante,*499. In accordance with the opinion on the appeal in that case, the judgment is

Reversed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 51 (Thursday, March 16, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 14330]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6683]



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


Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission

Action: Notice of Meeting
Notice of Meeting
    Notice is hereby given in accordance with Section 552b of Title 5, 
United States Code, that a meeting of the Blackstone River Valley 
National Heritage Corridor Commission will be held on Thursday, March 
23, 1995.
    The Commission was established pursuant to Public Law 99-647. The 
purpose of the Commission is to assist federal, state and local 
authorities in the development and implementation of an integrated 
resource management plan for those lands and waters within the 
Corridor.
    The meeting will convene at 7:00 p.m. at Rhode Island Historical 
Society, Aldrich House, 110 Benevolent Street, Providence, RI for the 
following reasons:

    1. Presentation from City of Providence.
    2. Report by Woonsocket Ad-hoc Committee.
    3. Commission Business.
    4. Other.

    It is anticipated that about twenty people will be able to attend 
the session in addition to the Commission members.
    Interested persons may make oral or written presentations to the 
Commission or file written statements. Such requests should be made 
prior to the meeting to:

James R. Pepper, Executive Director, Blackstone River Valley National 
Heritage Corridor Commission, One Depot Square, Woonsocket, RI 02895. 
Tel.: (401) 762-0250

    Further information concerning this meeting may be obtained from 
James R. Pepper, Executive Director of the Commission at the 
aforementioned address.
Nancy Brittian,
Acting Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 95-6683 Filed 3-14-95; 2:37 pm]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-18-00436-CR 

BRYAN MATTHEW ROCHA, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 47th District Court 

Potter County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 76,010-A-CR, Honorable Dan L. Schaap, Presiding 

 

February 1, 2019 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before CAMPBELL and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ. 

Pending before this Court is appellant Bryan Matthew Rocha’s motion to dismiss 

his appeal. As required by Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, 

appellant and his attorney have signed the motion. No decision of this Court having been 

delivered to date, we grant the motion. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No motion 

for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
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 generally accepted
accounting principles;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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in
the case of an annual report) 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.
 Date: August 6, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Joseph Patrick HannanJoseph Patrick HannanVice President and Interim Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          14,893
<SECURITIES>                                    36,295
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,484
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,203
<INVENTORY>                                        874
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                59,193
<PP&E>                                         417,462
<DEPRECIATION>                                  53,545
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 458,032
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           71,342
<BONDS>                                        492,859
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            1,259
<PREFERRED>                                         89
<COMMON>                                           109
<OTHER-SE>                                   (117,626)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   458,032
<SALES>                                          3,453
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,910
<CGS>                                            1,034
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,168
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                35,830
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,203
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,320
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (75,978)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (75,978)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (82,079)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (8.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (8.33)


</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JORGE ROCA-SUAREZ, 

AKA George Roca, AKA Jorge Roca,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-50074

D.C. No. 2:90-cr-00877-SVW-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 5, 2013** 

Pasadena, California

Before: GOODWIN, FISHER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Jorge Roca-Suarez appeals from the district court’s denial of motions (1) to

correct sentence pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a); (2) to

correct sentence pursuant to a petition for writ of audita querela; and (3) for relief

FILED

DEC 03 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

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

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The district

court granted a certificate of appealability for the first two claims but not the third. 

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The district court lacked jurisdiction over Roca’s Rule 35(a) motion because

it was untimely. Under the 1987 amendment to Rule 35(a), a court may correct a

sentence with 14 days after sentencing. The amended version of the rule applied to

Roca because the criminal activity for which he was convicted under Count I

continued after the effective date of the amended Rule 35(a). United States v.

Henrique, 988 F.2d 85, 86 (9th Cir. 1993).

Extraordinary relief via a petition for writ of audita querela is not available

just because the desired relief would not be obtained under section 2255. Tripati v.

Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir. 1988). A defendant may not bring a writ

of audita querela where the claim is cognizable in a section 2255 habeas petition. 

Carrington v. United States, 503 F.3d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that

statutory limits or cases that are not applied retroactively are subject to review

under section 2255). That Roca cannot bring a second or successive petition

without this court’s permission does not change that. See Lorentsen v. Hood, 223

F.3d 950, 953 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating that section 2255 remedy is not “inadequate

or ineffective” merely because section 2255's gate-keeping provisions prevent the

2
petitioner from filing a second or successive petition). Roca did not obtain

permission from this court so the district court did not have jurisdiction to

adjudicate his application for relief. Furthermore, Roca should not be granted

permission to file a successive petition to present the same Apprendi argument that

was previously denied by the district court in an order affirmed by our court.

We deny Roca’s application for a certificate of appealability for his Rule

60(b) argument.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

3