alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT32

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Tac Asset Corp. (the "Company")on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, Anthony N. DeMint, President and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

-  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or        15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; andThe information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the        Company.
/s/Anthony N.DeMint                            

AnthonyN. DeMint

Presidentand Chief Accounting Officer

February6, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 106 (Friday, May 31, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 27342]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13633]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP96-530-000]


Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership; Notice of 
Request Under Blanket Authorization

May 24, 1996.
    Take notice that on May 21, 1996, Great Lakes Limited Partnership 
(Great Lakes), One Woodward Avenue, Suite 1600, Detroit, Michigan, 
48226, filed in Docket No. CP96-530-000 a request pursuant to Sections 
157.205, and 157.211 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural 
Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205, and 157.211) for approval to construct and 
operate a tap to serve its Boyne City-Petoskey meter station (station), 
located in Charlesvoix County, Michigan, under the blanket certificate 
issued in Docket No. CP90-2053-000, pursuant to Section 7(c) of the 
Natural Gas Act (NGA), all as more fully set forth in the request which 
is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    Great Lakes states that it will not provide any additional 
transportation service in connection with the proposed tap. Great Lakes 
indicates that the tap is designed to provide additional security and 
reliability for existing service utilizing the station. It is asserted 
that the proposed tap is complementary to Great Lakes' Security Loop I 
Project.
    Any person or the Commission's Staff may, within 45 days of the 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.214), a motion to intervene and pursuant to Section 157.205 of the 
regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activities shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, 
the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-13633 Filed 5-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 32.1(1)

STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 1350

I, Joshua Pickus, the Chief Executive Officer
of SupportSoft, Inc. (the Company), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to the best of my knowledge,

(i) the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the Report), fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

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



/s/    JOSHUA PICKUSJoshua PickusChief Executive Officer and President


Date: March 10, 2009





A signed original of this
written statement required by 18 U.S.C. § 1350 has been provided to SupportSoft, Inc. and will be retained by SupportSoft, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|(1) | The material contained in this Exhibit 32.1 is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing, except to the extent that the registrant specifically
incorporates it by reference.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 

Harry D. Dalton, ) Case No. CV-18-08013-PCT-MHB 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) ORDER 

vs. ) 

 ) 

Arizona Living Rental, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

 ) 

 The Court having reviewed the Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice (Doc. 48), 

and good cause shown, 

 IT IS ORDERED granting the Stipulation (Doc. 48), 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot any pending motions, 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is dismissed with prejudice, each party 

to bear their own costs and attorney’s fees. 

 Dated this 7th day of May, 2018. 

 

Case 3:18-cv-08013-MHB Document 49 Filed 05/08/18 Page 1 of 1
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, 

 vs. 

Scott Daniel Warren, 

 Defendant. 

 17-MJ-00341-TUC-RCC (BPV) 

O R D E R 

CONTINUING PLEA DEADLINE 

AND TRIAL 

 

 This case is presently set for a Court trial beginning February 26, 2019. The 

Defendant filed a motion to continue. The Government has no objection to a continuance. 

 The Court having taken the motion under advisement at proceedings held February 13, 

2019, and good cause appearing; 

 IT IS ORDERED as follows: 

 1. The date by which the referred magistrate judge hears the change of plea must 

be no later than April 19, 2019 by 3:00 p.m. 

 2. All motions, unless made during a hearing or trial, shall be in writing and shall 

be made sufficiently in advance of trial to comply with the time periods set forth in 

LRCiv. 7.2 and any court order and to avoid any delays in the trial. Pretrial motions may 

be heard before a magistrate judge and a Report and Recommendation will be provided to 

the district judge assigned to the case. 

 3. This matter is RESET for a Court trial on Monday, May 6, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. 

 4. Excludable delay under 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7) is found to commence on 

Case 4:17-mj-00341-RCC-JR Document 91 Filed 02/14/19 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

February 27, 2019 and end on May 6, 2019. Such time shall be in addition to other 

excludable time under the Speedy Trial Act and shall commence as of the day following 

the day that would otherwise be the last day for commencement of trial. 

 5. That any and all subpoenas previously issued shall remain in full force and 

effect through the new trial date. 

 6. Any motion or stipulation to continue the scheduled trial date and change 

of plea deadline shall be filed with the Clerk of Court no later than 5:00 p.m., 

Monday, April 22, 2019. Alternatively, by that same deadline, if after consultation 

between government and defense counsel it is determined that a motion to continue 

the scheduled trial date and change of plea deadline will not be filed, government 

counsel shall notify the Court by an email to the chambers email address that the 

case and counsel are ready to proceed to trial on the scheduled trial date. The 

notification shall also include the estimated number of trial days needed to complete 

the trial. 

 Dated this 14th day of February, 2019. 

 

Case 4:17-mj-00341-RCC-JR Document 91 Filed 02/14/19 Page 2 of 2
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Arthur DELOCH, Appellant. Arthur DELOCH, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 63140, 65075.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

Sept. 20, 1994.

*578Raymond L. Legg, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Michelle A. Freund, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson .City, for respondent.

Before GARY M. GAERTNER, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and SIMON, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Arthur Deloch, appeals his jury, conviction for felony stealing in violation of RSMo § 570.030 (1986) in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs and arguments of the parties, as well as the transcripts and the legal file, and find no clear error in the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the trial court. In addition, we find that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rules 84.16(b) and 30.25(b). The parties have been provided with a memorandum, solely for their own information, setting forth the reasons for our decision.
EXHIBIT 31.2
 SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION
      (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; and(d)
    
    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.
  (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;
and(b)
    
    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.
  /s/ Alfred J. SmallAlfred J. SmallChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 32.11



STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 1350



I, Radha R. Basu, the chief executive officer of SupportSoft, Inc. (the Company), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of
chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to the best of my knowledge,



(i) the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the Report), fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and



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



/S/    RADHA R.
BASURadha R. Basu Chief Executive Officer and President




Date:  March 15, 2006





A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. § 1350 has been provided to SupportSoft, Inc. and will be retained by SupportSoft, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

|1 | The material contained in this Exhibit 32.1 is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under
the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing, except to the extent that the registrant specifically
incorporates it by reference.
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### Connie J. REEB f/k/a Connie J. Darby, Appellant, v. Robert D. DARBY, Respondent.

No. 61613.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

July 20, 1993.

Elizabeth Harris Christmas, St. Louis, for appellant.

Scott Everett Walter, Clayton, for respondent.

Before AHRENS, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Wife appeals the order of the child support entered in a decree of dissolution. She argues the court should have entered a retroactive award and further should have imputed income to Husband. We affirm in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

We further find an opinion in this matter would have no precedential value and affirm by written order. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their use only.
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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title
18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of Synova Healthcare Group, Inc., (the Company) does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007
(the Report) 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 19, 2007 |  | /s/ Robert L. Edwards  
|                        |  | Robert L. Edwards      
|                        |  | Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Case 4:17-mj-00341-N/A-DTF Document 6 Filed 12/07/17 Page 1 of 4
Case 4:17-mj-00341-N/A-DTF Document 6 Filed 12/07/17 Page 2 of 4
Case 4:17-mj-00341-N/A-DTF Document 6 Filed 12/07/17 Page 3 of 4
Case 4:17-mj-00341-N/A-DTF Document 6 Filed 12/07/17 Page 4 of 4
#### Adam E. YOUNG, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 51392.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

July 23, 1996.

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

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before ULRICH, C.J., and FENNER and BRECKENRIDGE, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Adam Young appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. He claims the trial court erred in denying his motion because *506trial counsel was ineffective for refusing to allow him to testify.

Judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
IV 

House Calendar No. 71 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 462 

[Report No. 111–147] 

Requesting that the President transmit to the House of Representatives 

all information in his possession relating to specific communications 

with Chrysler LLC (‘‘Chrysler’’). 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 20, 2009 

Mr. LATOURETTE (for himself, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. TIBERI, 

Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Mrs. LUMMIS, 

Mrs. CAPITO, and Mr. ROSKAM) submitted the following resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

JUNE 12, 2009 

Additional sponsor: Mr. COSTELLO

JUNE 12, 2009 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Requesting that the President transmit to the House of 

Representatives all information in his possession relating 

to specific communications with Chrysler LLC (‘‘Chrysler’’). 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives requests 

2 the President to transmit to the House of Representatives, 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 462 RH 

1 not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption of 

2 this resolution, copies of any portions of all documents, 

3 records, and communications in his possession referring 

4 or relating to scheduled plant closings of Chrysler LLC 

5 (hereafter in this resolution referred to as ‘‘Chrysler’’)— 

6 (1) that were discussed as part of the required 

7 February 17, 2009, Chrysler viability determination 

8 filing; 

9 (2) that were identified in the March 30, 2009, 

10 announcement by the Administration; 

11 (3) that were prepared for the 11:30 a.m. con12 ference call on April 30, 2009, between members of 

13 the President’s Auto Task Force (hereafter in this 

14 resolution referred to as the ‘‘Task Force’’) and 

15 Members of Congress, including transcripts; 

16 (4) revealing the President’s knowledge regard17 ing such plant closings prior to March 30, 2009; 

18 (5) included in Chrysler’s April 30, 2009, bank19 ruptcy filing in New York; 

20 (6) that identifies who was aware of such plant 

21 closings that would be announced prior to April 30, 

22 2009, among the Administration, Chrysler, the Task 

23 Force, and the International Union, United Auto24 mobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 462 RH 

1 Workers of America (also referred to as the 

2 ‘‘UAW’’); and 

3 (7) the interaction and procedures for identi4 fying the 789 Chrysler dealerships in the United 

5 States scheduled for closure, as announced on May 

6 14, 2009. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 71 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 462 

[Report No. 111–147] 

RESOLUTION 

Requesting that the President transmit to the 

with Chrysler LLC (‘‘Chrysler’’). possession relating to specific communications House of Representatives all information in his 

JUNE 12, 2009 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. TR AC Y A. M C KENZIE, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-30262

D.C . No. 2:10-c r-00079-R M P-1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington R osa nna M a louf Pe te rson, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 4, 2016 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : KOZINSKI, O’ SC ANNLAIN, a nd GOULD, C irc uit Judge s. R ule 36 of the Fe de ra l R

ule s of C rim ina l Proc e dure a llows a distric t c ourt to c orre c t “ a c le ric a l e rror” in a

judgm e nt. Fe d. R . C rim . P. 36. M c Ke nz ie argue s that whe n the distric t c o urt e nte re d the judgm e nt in his c a se , she “ e rre d” by fa iling to a w ard him c re dit for thetim e he spe nt in sta te c ustody

prior to thedate he wa s to 

# FIL ED MAR 01 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.be gin se rving his fe de ra l se nte n c e . B ut thedistric t c ourt ha d no a uthority to a ward M c K e nz ie c re dit for tim e se rve d, e ve n ha d she wa nte d to; only

the Attorne y Ge ne ra l, through the

B ure a u of Prisons, may

grant de fe nda

nts c re dit for tim e se rve d prior to thesta

rt of the ir fe de ra l se nte nc e s. Unite d State s v . W i lson , 503 U.S. 329, 333 (1992); Unite d State s v . Pe te rs , 470 F.3d 907, 909 (9th C ir. 2006). The distric t c ourt’ s fa ilure to do some thing shewa s forbidde n from doing wa s not an “ e rror”

— c le ric a l or othe rwise

— that c an be “ c orre c te d” via R ule 36. That is not to sa

y tha t M c Ke nz ie ha s no right to judic i a l proc e ss if he be lie ve s he ha s be e n wrongly de nie d c re dit for tim e he se rve d prior to thesta rt of his fe de ra l se nte n c e . B ut R u le 36 is not the

prope r m e c ha

nism to a sse rt his right to suc h c re dit. Se e Unite d State

s v . Giddings , 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th C ir. 1984). AFFIRM E D.

2
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Gregory L. COOPERWOOD, Appellant.

Nos. WD 48225, WD 50436.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 27, 1996.

Jarrett Aiken Johnson, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David G. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before BRECKENRIDGE, P.J., and ULRICH and LAURA DENVIR STITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Defendant Gregory L. Cooperwood appeals his conviction of trafficking in the second degree. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error. Because a published opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the applicable principles of law would have no prece-dential value, we affirm by this summary order under Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b). In addition, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion, for their information only, setting forth our reasoning.

Judgment affirmed. Rules 30.25(b), 84.16(b).
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Carl E. THRESHER, Appellant.

No. WD 51782.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 25, 1997.

*49' Rosemary E. Percival, Assistant Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Cheryl A, Caponegro, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before BRECKENRIDGE, P.J., and SMART and EDWIN H. SMITH, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals his conviction for one count of forcible rape, § 566.030, as a prior and persistent offender, §§ 558.016 and 557.036.4.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).