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




**CERTIFICATIONS**




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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




Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. §1350 (as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002), I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Peer Review Mediation
      and
      Arbitration, Inc.,. (the “Company”), hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on
      Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008
      (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
      in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of the Company.




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
      the
      SEC or its staff upon request.


Date: August 11,
              2008
            
            /s/ *Willis
              Hale*Willis
                Hale,
              Chairman,
                President and Chief Executive
                Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED BY**

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Rockwood Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Seifi Ghasemi,Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.            The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: August 6,  2008            |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                                  |   |
| /s/ SEIFI GHASEMI                |   |
| Seifi Ghasemi                         |   |
| Chairman and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

 

This certificationaccompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18or any other provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 or otherdocument authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature thatappears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statementrequired by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 2573]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1302]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of Thrift Supervision


Public Information Collection Requirements Submitted to OMB for 
Review

January 22, 1996.
    The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) has submitted the following 
public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and 
clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. 
Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the OTS 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
OTS Clearance Officer, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20552.
    OMB Number: 1550-0023.
    Form Number: OTS 1313 and OTS 1568.
    Type of Review: Revision.
    Title: Thrift Financial Report.
    Description: OTS collects financial data from insured savings 
associations and their subsidiaries in order to assure their safety and 
soundness as depositories of the personal monies of the general public. 
The OTS monitors the financial positions and interest-rate risk so that 
adverse conditions can be remedied promptly.
    Respondents: Savings and Loan Associations and Savings Banks.
    Estimated Number of Respondents/Recordkeepers: 1,460.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Response: 11.2 Hrs. Avg.
    Frequency of Response: 12.
    Estimated Total Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden: 196,194 Hrs.
    Clearance Officer: Colleen M. Devine, (202) 906-6025, Office of 
Thrift Supervision, 1700 Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552.
    OMB Reviewer: Milo Sunderhauf, (202) 395-7340, Office of Management 
and Budget, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 
20503.
Catherine C.M. Teti,
Director, Records Management and Information Policy.
[FR Doc. 96-1302 Filed 1-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6720-01-P
Exhibit 32.2

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 EarthBlock Technologies, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
James E. Hines, acting in the capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify to the best of our knowledge, 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: April 15, 2005 |  | EarthBlock Technologies, IncBY: /S/ James E. Hines
James E. HinesChief Financial Officer
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---

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 Quarterly Report of Anavex Life Sciences
Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2014 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 Company.

|Dated: | May 14, 2014 | /s/Christopher Missling, PhD                                 
|------ | ------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------
|       |              | Christopher Missling, PhD                                    
|       |              | Chief Executive Officer and Chief
      Financial Officer    
|       |              | (Principal Executive, Financial and Accounting
      Officer)

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to
accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether
made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation
language in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise
adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
* The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-2806

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern v. * District of Arkansas. * Rufus Raglin Stelivan, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: March 13, 2001 Filed: March 22, 2001

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and MONTGOMERY, * District Judge.

___________ PER CURIAM. When Arkansas state police officers arrested Rufus Raglin Stelivan in 1995, the officers seized $2700 in cash. Stelivan was notified personally and by publication of state court forfeiture proceedings, but he failed to contest the matter, and the cash was forfeitedto the state in 1996. No federal forfeiture proceedings were ever initiated. After the state court forfeiture, Stelivan brought this federal action seeking the money's** The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- return. The district court ** found $960 of the forfeited cash belonged to Stelivan, but concluded the state forfeiture complied with state law and the Due Process Clause, and thus the district court lacked jurisdiction over the restitution action. Stelivan appeals. "[O]nly one court may have jurisdiction over the res in an in rem proceeding." Madewell v. Downs , 68 F.3d 1030, 1041 n.13 (8th Cir. 1995). Thus, the first court, whether state or federal, to acquire jurisdiction over forfeited money maintains jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts. See id. Here, the state court acquired primary jurisdiction in the state court forfeiture proceedings, so the federal district court lacked jurisdiction to return it. See id. Stelivan asserts the district court issued an improper advisory opinion about the $960 and the adequacy of state notice. We disagree. The district court's findings and conclusions merely showed the state had obtained primary jurisdiction over the money. We affirm the district court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
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 Smitten Press: Local Lore and Legends,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Michael Williams, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, 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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, another
document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company. and will be retained
by the Company. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.


/s/ Michael Williams
------------------------------------------
Michael Williams
Director acting as Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer

November 30, 2006


                                       14
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 284 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 284

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that all Americans 
 should participate in a moment of silence to reflect upon the service 
and sacrifice of members of the United States Armed Forces both at home 
                              and abroad.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 24, 2009

 Mr. Peters submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that all Americans 
 should participate in a moment of silence to reflect upon the service 
and sacrifice of members of the United States Armed Forces both at home 
                              and abroad.

Whereas it was through the brave and noble efforts of the Nation's forefathers 
        that the United States first gained freedom and became a sovereign 
        nation;
Whereas there are more than 1,500,000 active and reserve component members of 
        the Armed Forces serving the Nation in support and defense of the values 
        and freedom that all Americans cherish;
Whereas the members of the Armed Forces deserve the utmost respect and 
        admiration of their fellow Americans for putting their lives in danger 
        for the sake of the freedoms enjoyed by all Americans;
Whereas members of the Armed Forces are defending freedom and democracy around 
        the globe and are playing a vital role in protecting the safety and 
        security of all Americans;
Whereas the Nation officially celebrates and honors the accomplishments and 
        sacrifices of veterans, patriots, and leaders who fought for freedom, 
        but does not yet officially pay tribute to those who currently serve in 
        the Armed Forces;
Whereas all Americans should participate in a moment of silence to support our 
        troops; and
Whereas March 26, 2009, is designated as ``National Support Our Troops Day'': 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
all Americans should participate in a moment of silence to reflect upon 
the service and sacrifice of members of the United States Armed Forces 
both at home and abroad.
                                 <all>
```
Order entered October 14, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00357-CV

DAVID BLAIR, Appellant

V.

THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF DALLAS, TX 

ROSELAND ESTATES, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-20-01421-D

ORDER

On September 26, 2022, after court reporter Coral L. Wahlen informed the 

Court that the reporter’s record had not been requested, we directed appellant to 

file, within ten days, written verification of a request. Although we cautioned him 

that failure to comply could result in the appeal being submitted without the 

record, see TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c), appellant has not complied. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the appeal submitted without the reporter’s record. See id.
As the clerk’s record has been filed, we ORDER appellant to file his brief 

no later than November 14, 2022.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III

JUSTICE
1 The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United St ates District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-3289

___________ Dale Eugene Schlichting, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. United States of America, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: November 20, 2009 Filed: December 7, 2009

___________ Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Federal prisoner Dale Eugene Schlichting appeals the district court’s 1 order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challe nging his sentences for mail fraud and engaging in monetary transactions in crimin ally derived property. The district court granted a certificate of appealability on Schlichting’s claim that counsel was ineffective at sentencing for failing to challenge enhancements under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(I) (loss between $1 million and $2.5 million), § 2B1.1(b)(8)(C) (violation-2- of prior administrative order or decree), § 3A1.1(b) (vulnerable victim), and § 3B1.3 (abuse of position of trust). Schlichting, however, stipulated to these enhancements in his plea agreement and at his plea hearing. SeeUnited States v. His Law , 85 F.3d 379, 379 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (defendant is bound by promise made in plea agreement). Schlichting does not assert ine ffective assistance with respect to the plea agreement, and he expressed satisfaction with his plea atto rney’s representation at the plea hearing. Having carefully reviewed the record, the briefs, a nd the applicable law, we conclude that Schlich ting cannot show that sentencing counsel acted unreasonably in abiding by the plea agreement’s terms or that he was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to challenge the agreed-upon enhancements. See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984) (ineffective a ssistance standard); UnitedStates v. Davis , 406 F.3d 505, 508 (8th Cir. 2005) (we review in effective assistan ce claims de novo). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Gilberto Tapia, 

Defendant.

No. CR-17-1534-PHX-DJH

DETENTION ORDER 

 In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), the issue of 

detention was addressed at a hearing on December 27, 2017. The Court was informed 

that the defendant is subject to other custody and is not eligible for release at this time. 

 The Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is subject to 

other custody and should be similarly detained in this case. If circumstances change such 

that defendant is no longer in custody in the other matter, defendant shall have leave to 

request that the matter of detention be reopened in this case. 

 IT IS ORDERED that the defendant be detained pending further proceedings. The 

defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his designated 

representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, 

from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal. The 

defendant shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation with defense 

counsel. On order of the Court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the 

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to 
- 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 

the United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a Court 

proceeding. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that should a motion for review/reconsideration of 

this detention order be filed, it is counsel's responsibility to deliver a copy of the motion 

for review/reconsideration to Pretrial Services at least one day prior to the hearing. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if a release to a third party is to be considered, it 

is counsel's responsibility to notify Pretrial Services sufficiently in advance of the hearing 

to allow Pretrial Services an opportunity to interview and investigate the potential third 

party custodian. 

 Dated this 28th day of December, 2017.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis

JOHN DANIEL GRANTHAM

v. Record No. 0519-96-1 MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM B & S LANDSCAPING, INC. JULY 23, 1996 AND UNINSURED EMPLOYERS' FUND

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION (John Daniel Grantham, pro se , on brief). (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General; John J. Beall, Jr., Senior Assistant Attorney General; Julia D. Tye, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee Uninsured Employers' Fund. No brief for appellee B & S Landscaping, Inc.

John Daniel Grantham ("claimant") appeals a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission ("commission") awarding him payment for chiropractic care three times per week and daily gym visits, and reimbursement for mileage and prescriptions. Claimant did not set forth any specific questions presented in his brief as required by Rule 5A:20(c). Moreover, from our review of the record and the briefs of the parties, it appears that claimant prevailed on all issues presented on review before the full commission. Accordingly, we find that this appeal is without merit and we summarily affirm the commission's decision.

Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 23-1161 September Term, 2023

SEC-2023-64

Filed On: March 21, 2024

John Doe,

Petitioner

v.

Securities and Exchange Commission,

Respondent

PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM AN ORDER OF THE 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

BEFORE: Henderson, Millett, and Walker, Circuit Judges

J U D G M E N T

This petition for review of an order of the Securities and Exchange Commission

(“SEC”) was considered on the briefs and appendix filed by the parties. See Fed. R.

App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the petition for review be denied. Petitioner

has not shown that the SEC’s May 26, 2023 order denying his whistleblower award

application was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in

accordance with law. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(f); 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). The declarations

submitted by agency attorneys explain that the whistleblower information submitted by

petitioner did not in any way assist or contribute to the covered action. Petitioner has

provided no persuasive reason to question these assertions. See Doe v. SEC, 846 F.

App’x 1, 4 (D.C. Cir. 2021). 

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam
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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

Ahmad Suhad Ahmad, 

 

 Defendant. 

17-08749MJ(BGM) 

ORDER 

 The Court having considered the Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint Without 

Prejudice and Quash Arrest Warrant [Doc. 6], and good cause appearing; 

IT IS ORDERED the Motion is GRANTED and the above-captioned Complaint 

is dismissed without prejudice and the arrest warrant for Ahmad Suhad Ahmad issued 

November 8, 2017, is hereby quashed. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned case is unsealed. Any 

documents that are non-public shall remain sealed. 

 Dated this 19th day of March, 2018. 

Case 4:17-mj-08749-BGM Document 7 Filed 03/20/18 Page 1 of 1