alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit      32.0**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS      ADDED BY**

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

| 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of the                Company                as of and for the period covered by this                Report. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:  | /s/                Robert J. Stroh, Jr.                                                     |
|--------|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |      | Robert                J. Stroh, Jr.                                                         |
|   |      | Chairman,                Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial                Officer |
|   |      | August                12, 2008                                                              |

----
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 6375

COREY A. THOMAS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. NC DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Terrence W. Boyle , District Judge. ( 5:20

- hc

- 02026

- BO )

Submitted : December 10, 2021 Decided: February 7, 2022

Before KING and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Corey A. Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-6375 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/07/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Corey A. Thomas seeks to appeal the dist rict court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s

asse ssment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Tho mas has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and arg ument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 21-6375 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/07/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 16, 2014

No. 04-14-00228-CV

BEXAR APPRAISAL DISTRICT,

Appellant

v.

BITTERBLUE INC., Niemann Family Partnership, Linda Wittig, Custodian, et al., and 

Bitterblue/ Two Creeks Phase Two Ltd.,

Appellees

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-08083

Honorable Janet P. Littlejohn, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant has filed an unopposed motion to consolidate appeal numbers 04-14-00227-

CV, 04-14-00228-CV, 04-14-00229-CV, and 04-14-00230-CV. Based on the representations in 

the motion regarding the similarities in the cases, this court has determined that the appeals 

should be consolidated for briefing and argument. It is therefore ORDERED that the motion to 

consolidate is GRANTED. The parties shall file all motions, briefs, and other documents as if 

the four appeals were one case, but shall include all four appeal numbers in the style. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 9.3(a). The records for the four appeals shall remain separated. The four appeals will 

be argued together, as a single appeal, and the total time limit for each side at oral argument shall 

equal the ordinary time limit for a single appeal absent a motion requesting different time 

considerations. The court will dispose of all four appeals with the same judgment, opinion, and 

mandate.

_________________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 16th day of May, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BENITO CERVANTES, an individual, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY,

a foreign insurer, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-35315

D.C. No. 1:15-cv-03172-SMJ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Salvador Mendoza, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 9, 2018** 

Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS, TASHIMA, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff Benito Cervantes appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment to Defendant Foremost Insurance Company. Reviewing de

FILED

APR 11 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
novo and taking all facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Am. Tower Corp.

v. City of San Diego, 763 F.3d 1035, 1043 (9th Cir. 2014), we affirm. 

The insurance policy does not cover the damage to Plaintiff’s mobile home. 

It covers only "direct, sudden and accidental loss of, or damage to" the mobile

home. Under Washington law, the word "sudden," when not otherwise defined,

means "unforeseen and unexpected." Anderson & Middleton Lumber Co. v.

Lumbermen’s Mut. Cas. Co., 333 P.2d 938, 941 (Wash. 1959). Undisputed

evidence shows that the damage about which Plaintiff complains developed over a

period of up to a year or longer and was readily detectable. The damage was thus

not "sudden."

Plaintiff’s argument that the damage was "sudden" because he failed to

detect it misses the point. What matters is whether the damage itself was

detectable, not whether the insured party actually detected it. See id. at 940 (noting

that the damage in that case could be considered sudden "as long as its progress

was undetect[a]ble"). 

AFFIRMED.

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

Peter Strojnik, State Bar No. 6464

STROJNIK P.C.

2375 East Camelback Road Suite 600

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Telephone: (602) 524-6602

ADA@strojnik.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Fernando Gastelum,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

V & P, LLC,

Defendant

Case No: 2:18-00332-DMF

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION

AND

REQUEST FOR STAY PENDING 

RETAINER OF NEW COUNSEL

Please take note that Plaintiff’s counsel’s license to practice law has been 

suspended on an interim basis. Exhibit 1. Therefore, the undersigned counsel can no 

longer appear on Plaintiff’s behalf.

Plaintiff requests that the Court stay this proceeding for a period of sufficient 

duration for Plaintiff to find and engage new counsel.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED on the date reflected in the header.

STROJNIK, P.C.

Peter Strojnik, 6464

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case 2:18-cv-00332-DGC Document 25 Filed 07/17/18 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 

Mark Aaron Foster, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV-18-00229-PHX-DWL 

ORDER 

Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the United 

States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 11). The R&R, which was issued on November 30, 2018, 

recommended that the petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice and further provided 

that “[t]he parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this 

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. . . . Failure 

timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result 

in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court without further 

review.” (Doc. 11 at 11-12.) 

Here, no such objections have been filed. Thus, the Court accepts the Magistrate 

Judge’s recommendation. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (“It does 

not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual 

or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to 

those findings.”); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“[N]o 
- 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 

review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are 

filed.”). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1221 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations 

de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 11) is accepted and adopted, that the Petition 

(Doc. 1) is denied and dismissed with prejudice, and that the Clerk of Court shall enter 

judgment accordingly. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability and leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be DENIED because the dismissal of the Petition is 

justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling 

debatable. 

 Dated this 1st day of February, 2019.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29769-29770]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14790]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993 Low Cost Flip Chip Consortium

    Notice is hereby given that, on May 20, 1996, pursuant to Sec. 6(a) 
of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 
U.S.C. Sec. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the Low Cost Flip Chip 
Consortium filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney 
General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its 
membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending 
the

[[Page 29770]]

Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, the changes 
are as follows: Motorola Corporation, Schaumburg, IL has been added to 
the venture.
    No changes have been made in the planned activities of the Low Cost 
Flip Chip Consortium. Membership remains open and the Consortium 
intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes 
in membership.
    On August 30, 1995, the low Cost Flip Chip Consortium filed its 
original notification pursuant to Sec. 6(a) of the Act. The Department 
of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Sec. 6(b) of the Act on December 6, 1995 (60 FR 62476).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 96-14790 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
**EXHIBIT 10.1**

 

**OMEGA FLEX, INC.**

Phantom Stock Agreements 

Schedule of Directors and Officers 

As of March 31, 2007 

 

 

| **Director/Officer** | **Type**   | **Number** | **Grant********Date** | **Grant****Price****** | **Maturity****Date****** | **Vesting****Schedule** |
|----------------------|------------|------------|-----------------------|------------------------|--------------------------|-------------------------|
|                 |       |       |                  |                   |                     |                    |
| Duane E. Shooltz     | Full Value | 2,420      | 12/11/2006            | $20.66                 | 12/11/2010               | 3 years                 |
|                 |       |       |                  |                   |                     |                    |
| Duane E. Shooltz     | Full Value | 454        | 03/05/2007            | $22.02                 | 03/05/2011               | 3 years                 |
|                 |       |       |                  |                   |                     |                    |
| Dean W. Rivest       | Full Value | 1,135      | 03/05/2007            | $22.02                 | 03/05/2011               | 3 years                 |
##### 



EXHIBIT 4.1




---



##### 



IMPORTANT NOTICE
 
   TEN COM
    
    -
    
    as tenants in common
    
    UNIF GIFT MIN ACT-
    
    ________________________________
    
    Custodian _______________TEN ENT
    
    -
    
    as tenants by the entireties
    
    
    
    (Cust)
    
    (Minor)JT TEN
    
    -
    
    as joint tenants with right
    
    
    
    under Uniform Gifts to Minorsof survivorship and not as tenants in commonAct __________________________________________________________(State)UNIF TRF MIN ACT-
    
    ________________________________
    
    Custodian (until age _____)(Cust)________________________________
    
    under Uniform Transfers(Minor)to Minors Act __________________________________________________(State)
   PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER
IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE
 
  
 
 
 
 Dated ______________________
    
    X
    
    ____________________________________________________________________________X
    
    _____________________________________________________________________________NOTICE:
    
    THE SIGNATURE(S) TO THIS ASSIGNMENT
MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME(S) AS
WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE
CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR
WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR
ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.
  By
    
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS,
STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN
APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.
```
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 101 (Thursday, May 23, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 25854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12916]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-190-002]

Colorado Interstate Gas Company; Notice of Tariff Compliance 
Filing

May 17, 1996.
    Take notice that on May 15, 1996, Colorado Interstate Gas Company 
(CIG), tendered for filing revised tariff sheets and to withdraw tariff 
sheets filed May 10, 1996, to its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 
No. 1.
    CIG states that the new tariff sheets are filed to correct errors 
in the sheets filed May 10, 1996 and to comply with Ordering Paragraph 
(C) of the Order issued April 15, 1996 in Docket No. RP96-190-000. CIG 
discovered that the May 10, 1996 filed tariff sheets erroneously 
included two paragraphs at the end of Substitute Original Sheet No. 380 
and some other minor wording errors and is filing herein to withdraw 
those tariff sheets (Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 379 and 
Substitute Original Sheet No. 380. CIG is filing herein corrected 
tariff sheets.
    CIG states that the tariff sheets filed May 10, 1996 were filed in 
accordance with the April 25, 1996 Order. Article 38 of the General 
Terms and Conditions of the Tariff was revised to state that new and 
existing Shippers that pay the maximum recourse rates have the same 
right to capacity as a Shipper willing to pay the higher negotiated 
rate. In addition, the revised tariff sheets state that negotiated 
rates do not apply as the price cap for capacity release transactions.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E. 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance 
with Section 154.209 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-12916 Filed 5-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Scott Daniel Warren,

Defendant.

CR-18-00223-TUC-RCC (DTF)

ORDER 

The Court took under advisement the Motion in Limine to Preclude Prior Acts (Doc. 

348). That motion is Granted.

As previously stated the Motion in Limine to Exclude Alien Smuggling Expert (Doc. 

349) is Moot as the Government does not intend to call the witness. 

The Government’s Motion to Clarify Court’s Order as to Defendant’s Motion to 

Preclude Irrelevant Evidence of Conspiracy (Doc. 356) was Granted in Part. The Court 

approves the suggested redactions by the Government except Doc. 315-1, 21:25-22:2 and 

Doc. 315-2, 52:18-53:2 should remain.

Dated this 31st day of October, 2019.

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 364 Filed 10/31/19 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 2493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1427]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[I.D. 011896A]


Marine Mammals

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Issuance of scientific research Permit No. 983 (P772#67)

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Dr. Michael F. Tillman, Southwest 
Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, 8604 La 
Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92038 has been issued a permit to take 
Antarctic pinnipeds for purposes of scientific research.

ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review 
upon written request or by appointment, in the following office(s):
    Permits Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13130, Silver Spring, 
MD 20910 (301/713-2289).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 13, 1995, notice was published 
in the Federal Register (60 FR 64028) that a request for a scientific 
research permit to take southern elephant seals, (Mirounga leonina), 
Antarctic fur seals (Arctocephalus gazella) Weddell seals 
(Leptonychotes weddellii), crabeater seals (Lobodon carcinophagus), 
leopard seals (Hydrurga leptonyx), and Ross seals (Ommatophoca rossii), 
had been submitted by the above-named individual. The requested permit 
has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act 
of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), and the Regulations 
Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216).

    Dated: January 18, 1996.
Ann D. Terbush,
Chief, Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-1427 Filed 1-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
**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, 2009 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.   TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| Date: August 7,  2009            |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                                  |   |
| /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.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----