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





The undersigned, Thomas W. Colligan,
the Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Treasurer of
YACHT FINDERS, INC. (the “Company”), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:





1.  The Company's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and





2.  Information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operation of the Company.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the
undersigned has executed this statement this6th day of August,
2009.





/s/ Thomas W. ColliganThomas
      W. ColliganChief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
YACHT FINDERS, INC. and will be retained by YACHT FINDERS, INC. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 103 (Tuesday, June 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 29270]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11478]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial 
Research Special Emphasis Panel; Review of Fellowship Applications.
    Date: June 30, 2021.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Jimok Kim, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Branch, NIDCR, NIH, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, 
Suite 664, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-8559, [email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.121, Oral 
Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 26, 2021.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-11478 Filed 5-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 23.1
                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

    As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of
our report included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed
registration statements on Form S-8 (File No. 33-70342), Form S-8 (File
No. 33-63752), Form S-8 (File No. 333-11975), Form S-8 (File No. 333-80925) and
Form S-8 (File No. 333-40540).

Arthur Andersen LLP

Las Vegas, Nevada
March 28, 2001
#### Ruiz Alberto GONZALES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 06-95-00123-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Texarkana.

Submitted June 6, 1995.

Decided June 13, 1995.

*405Kenneth D. Carden, Las Colinas, for appellant.

Sue Korioth, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, for appellee.

Before CORNELIUS, C.J., and BLEIL and GRANT, JJ.

OPINION

GRANT, Justice.

Ruiz Gonzales appeals his conviction for the offense of unlawful delivery of a controlled substance (cocaine). He was tried before the trial court on his plea of not guilty. The court found him guilty and assessed punishment at fifteen years’ confinement.

Gonzales’s attorney has filed an appellate brief in which he concludes that, after a review of the record and the related law, the appeal is frivolous and without merit. He has professionally evaluated the record and has found no error which arguably supports an appeal. The brief thus meets the requirements of Anders *v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *Stafford v. State,*813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Crim.App.1991).

Counsel attempted to provide Gonzales with a copy of his brief and notify him of his right to review the record and to submit a pro se brief. Counsel has advised this Court that, even with the assistance of various law enforcement officials and prison authorities, he has been unable to locate Gonzales. Gonzales has not kept his counsel informed as to his current address so that notification could be made. Accordingly, we hold that he has waived his right to such notification, and we will consider this case on the brief filed by his counsel.

We have examined the record of trial, and we conclude that the evidence adduced was sufficient to support the finding of guilt entered by the court. The punishment assessed was within the range provided by law for the offense of which he was convicted. We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




STATEMENT
      REQUIRED BY 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 on Form 10-QSB of BlueSky Systems, Corp.
      (the "Company") for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2007, as
      filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      I, Karol Kapinos, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
      Company, certify that:





*   the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




*   information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company.










/s/
      Karol Kapinos


Karol
      Kapinos


President,
      Chief Executive Officer,


Chief
      Financial Officer, Controller





November
      27, 2007







This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by us for purposes of Section 18
      of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6882

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DEWROD MCCOLL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Rockingham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (CR-93-193, CA-97-1329-1)

Submitted: November 19, 1998 Decided: December 2, 1998

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dewrod McColl, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United

States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Dewrod McColl appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. McColl, Nos. CR-93-193; CA-97-1329-1

(M.D.N.C. June 1, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
exv10w1







EXHIBIT 10.1




SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION FOR THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES

OF RAMCO-GERSHENSON PROPERTIES TRUST









	 	 	 	 	 
	

    Annual cash retainer (paid quarterly):


	
 
	
    $
	
    15,000
	
 

	

    Additional cash retainer:


	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	

    Chairman


	
 
	
 
	
    100,000
	
 

	

    Audit Committee chair(1)


	
 
	
 
	
    10,000
	
 

	

    Audit Committee members(1)


	
 
	
 
	
    5,000
	
 

	

    Executive Committee members(1)


	
 
	
 
	
    2,500
	
 

	

    Attendance fees per Board meeting:


	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	

    In person


	
 
	
 
	
    1,500
	
 

	

    Via telephone


	
 
	
 
	
    500
	
 

	

    Annual equity retainer (shares of restricted stock)(2)


	
 
	
 
	
    2,000
	
 













 





 




			
	
    (1)
    		
    Payment is subject to attendance by
    the Trustee at 75% or more of the applicable committee meetings
    during the applicable calendar year.
    
	 
	
    (2)
    		
    Grants are made under the
    Trust’s 2008 Restricted Share Plan for Non-Employee
    Trustees. The shares of restricted stock vest over three years.
    The grant is made on June 30th or, if not a business day,
    the business day prior to June 30th.
    



 



    The Trust also reimburses all Trustees for all expenses incurred
    in connection with attending any meetings or performing their
    duties as Trustees.


     Trustees who are employees or officers of the Trust or any of its subsidiaries do not receive
any compensation for serving on the Board of Trustees or any committees thereof.
EXHIBIT 23.1
   1)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-13773) pertaining to the
Non-Plan Option Grants, 1992 Stock Option Plan, 1996 Equity Incentive
Plan and 1996 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Peerless Systems
Corporation,2)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-63967) pertaining to the 1996
Equity Incentive Plan of Peerless Systems Corporation,3)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-82323) pertaining to the
Auco, Inc. 1994 Stock Option Plant and Non-Qualified Stock Awards and
Agreements of Peerless Systems Corporation,4)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-57362) pertaining to the 1996
Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Peerless Systems Corporation,5)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333- 73562) pertaining to the
1996 Equity Incentive Plan of Peerless Systems Corporation,6)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-97265) pertaining to the 1996
Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Peerless Systems Corporation,7)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-111000) pertaining to the
1996 Equity Incentive Plan of Peerless Systems Corporation, and8)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-129401) pertaining to the
2005 Incentive Award Plan of Peerless Systems Corporation;
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

SERGIO BARAHONA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-10388

D.C. No. 4:13-cr-00450-JAS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

James Alan Soto, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 22, 2015** 

Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. 

Sergio Barahona appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal

reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

FILED

JUN 30 2015

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).
Barahona contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable based on

the specific facts of his case, including that he returned to the United States to

support and provide home care for his family. He also argues that the 16-level

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) is disproportionately harsh. The

district court imposed a downward variance of nine months from the advisory

Guidelines in consideration of the mitigating factors, and did not abuse its

discretion in imposing Barahona’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

38, 51 (2007). The 48-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including

Barahona’s criminal history of domestic abuse. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.

2 14-10388
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5701 

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to prohibit the placement 

of a photograph of any household member on an electronic benefit 

card used by such household to purchase food with supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits provided under such Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 26, 2023 

Mr. CASAR introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to prohibit 

the placement of a photograph of any household member 

on an electronic benefit card used by such household 

to purchase food with supplemental nutrition assistance 

program benefits provided under such Act. 

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 ‘‘No Photo for Food 

5 Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5701 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS. 

2 Section 7(h) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 

3 (7 U.S.C. 2016(h)) is amended— 

4 (1) in paragraph (2)(C)(i) by striking ‘‘photo5 graphic identification on electronic benefit transfer 

6 cards,’’, and 

7 (2) by amending paragraph (9) to read as fol8 lows: 

9 ‘‘(9) LIMITATION.—A State agency may not re10 quire that an electronic benefit card contain a photo11 graph of any household member authorized to use 

12 such card to purchase food under the supplemental 

13 nutrition assistance program.’’. 

14 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS. 

15 (a) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Except as provided in sub16 section (b), this Act and the amendments made by this 

17 Act shall take effect 180 days after the date of the enact18 ment of this Act. 

19 (b) APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.—The amend20 ments made by this Act shall not apply with respect to 

21 certification periods that begin before the effective date 

22 of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### In the Interest of T.B.—a minor, Plaintiff. (Two Cases) JUVENILE OFFICER, Respondent, v. T.D.—Natural Mother, Appellant. (Two Cases)

Nos. WD 48811, WD 48812.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

July 26, 1994.

Kevin Thomas, Independence, for appellant.

Lori Stipp, Kansas City, for plaintiff.

Kyla Grove, Guardian Ad Litem, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before ULRICH, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and HANNA, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from judgments terminating parental rights pursuant to § 211.447, RSMo Supp. 1993.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5455 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5455

    To clarify certain regulations to allow for the installation of 
  pulsating light systems for high-mounted stop lamps, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 13, 2023

   Mr. Webster of Florida (for himself and Mr. Trone) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 
  and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
   each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To clarify certain regulations to allow for the installation of 
  pulsating light systems for high-mounted stop lamps, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Collision Avoidance Systems Act of 
2023''.

SEC. 2. REAR-END COLLISION AVOIDANCE SYSTEMS.

    (a) Clarification on Pulsating Light Systems.--Beginning on the 
date of enactment of this Act, Standard 108 shall be deemed to allow 
for the use of pulsating light system on vehicles covered by such 
Standard.
    (b) Rulemaking.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall issue such 
regulations as are necessary to update Standard 108 to--
            (1) include performance-based standards for pulsating light 
        systems; and
            (2) allow for the use on motor vehicles of such systems.
    (c) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Pulsating light system.--The term ``pulsating light 
        system'' means a system for a high-mounted stop lamp in which--
                    (A) when the brake of the vehicle is applied, the 
                lamp pulses rapidly no more than 4 times and for no 
                more than 1.2 seconds, after which such lamp converts 
                to a continuous light as a normal stop lamp until the 
                time such brake is released; and
                    (B) the pulses described in subparagraph (A) may 
                not repeat upon a subsequent application of the brake 
                of the vehicle for a lock-out period of at least 5 
                seconds after the release of the brake described in 
                subparagraph (A).
            (2) Standard 108.--The term ``Standard 108'' means Federal 
        Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 108, contained in section 
        571.108 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. John CAUDILL, Appellant. John CAUDILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. WD 46344, WD 47701.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 12, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 31, 1994.

Application to Transfer Denied Aug. 15, 1994.

Susan L. Hogan, Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before BERREY, P.J., and KENNEDY and ELLIS, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from conviction of murder in the second degree, armed criminal action, robbery in the second degree and sentences imposed as well as denial of Rule 29.15 motion.

Affirmed. Rule 30.25(b) and Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 32.1



Certification

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)



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), each of the undersigned officers of Excelsior Venture Partners III, LLC (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2004
(the Form 10-K) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |                          |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | ------------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: January 28, 2005 |  | /s/ Douglas A. Lindgren 
|                       |  | Name:                    |  | Douglas A. Lindgren    
|                       |  | Title:                   |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                       | 
|Date: January 28, 2005 |  | /s/ Robert F. Aufenanger
|                       |  | Name:                    |  | Robert F. Aufenanger   
|                       |  | Title:                   |  | Treasurer              



The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely 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) and is not being filed as part of a separate disclosure document.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6203
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LARON GRIFFIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CR-97-943) Submitted: April 24, 2003 Decided: May 2, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Laron Griffin, Appellant Pro Se. Miller Williams Shealy, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Laron Griffin appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the district court’s denial of his motion for reduction of sentence based on his acceptance of responsibility. The district court lacked authority to reduce Griffin’s sentence on this basis. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2000); Fed. R. Crim. P. 35. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying Griffin’s mo tion. 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