alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
32.2





Certification of Principal
Financial Officer


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 Vision Acquisition III, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, David Berger, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





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





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





/s/ David BergerDavid
      Berger
                Principal
      Financial Officer
                May
      17, 2010
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

Wesley Eugene Sellers, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

FCA US LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-18-00923-PHX-BSB

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade’s Order and Report 

and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s claims against Jane Doe Whitaker 

and Does 1 through 50 be dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve pursuant to 

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 52.) To date, no objections have 

been filed. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this Court 

must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report...to which objection 

is made,” and “may accept, reject, modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. 

Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983)). Parties have fourteen days from service of a 

copy of a Magistrate’s recommendation within which to file specific written objections to 

the Court. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Failure to object to a Magistrate 
- 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

Judge’s recommendation relieves the Court of conducting a de novo review of the 

Magistrate Judge’s factual findings; the Court then may decide the dispositive motion on 

the applicable law. Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979) (citing 

Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1974)).

By failing to object to a Report and Recommendation, a party waives its right to 

challenge the Magistrate’s factual findings, but not necessarily the Magistrate’s legal 

conclusions. Baxter, 923 F.2d at 1394; see also Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th

Cir. 1998). A failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s legal conclusion “is a factor to be 

weighed in considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Turner, 

158 F.3d at 455.

DISCUSSION1

Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and no 

objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and 

adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 52.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing this matter without prejudice as to Jane 

Doe Whitaker and Does 1 through 50 upon Plaintiff’s failure to serve those Defendants 

pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Dated this 30th day of August, 2018.

Honorable Stephen M. McNamee

Senior United States District Judge

 1

The procedural history of this case, along with a discussion of Plaintiff’s 

response to the Magistrate Judge’s Order to Show Cause, is set forth in the Magistrate 

Judge’s Order and Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 52.)
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

| (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities and 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. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                               |   |                                     |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|--------|
| December                  19, 2007 |   | /s/                  Carl L. Smith, III  |   |
|                               |   | Carl                  L. Smith, III      |   |
|                               |   | Chief                  Executive Officer |   |
|                               |   |                                     |   |
|                               |   |                                     |   |
| December                  19, 2007 |   | /s/                  Matthew Veal        |   |
|                               |   | Matthew                  Veal            |   |
|                               |   | Chief                  Financial Officer |   |
Order entered August 4, 2017

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 17 - 00833 - CV IN RE KATHRYN L. SHI LLING, Relator On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 7

Collin Cou nty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 007 - 01659 - 2016



### O RDER Before the Court is relator’s July 14, 2017 petition for writ of mandamus. The Court requests real parties in interest and respondent file their responses, if any, to the petition on or before August 21, 2017

. /s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
Filed 1/26/17 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2017 ND 4

James R. Lowe, Appellant

v.

North Dakota Workforce Safety & Insurance, Appellee

No. 20160287

Appeal from the District Court of McKenzie County, Northwest Judicial District, the Honorable Daniel Saleh El-Dweek, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

James R. Lowe, self-represented, 511 Rogers Road, Newark, TX 76071, appellant; on brief.

Mitchell D. Armstrong and Sarah E. Kuntz, Special Assistant Attorneys General, 122 East Broadway Avenue, P.O. Box 460, Bismarck, ND 58502-0460, for appellee; on brief.

Lowe v. WSI

No. 20160287

Per Curiam.

[¶1]James Lowe appeals from a district court judgment dismissing his appeal to the district court from an administrative law judge’s order, which affirmed Workforce Safety and Insurance’s order denying disability benefits.  The district court dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it found Lowe had failed to timely serve notice of appeal on WSI.  Upon review of the record, we conclude Lowe failed to serve notice of appeal on WSI within thirty days after notice of the order was given as required by N.D.C.C. § 28-32-42(1).  The district court judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).  See Benson v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 2003 ND 193, ¶ 6, 672 N.W.2d 640 (holding the district court was without subject matter jurisdiction where the appellant failed to serve notice of appeal on WSI within thirty days after notice of the order was given).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Lisa Fair McEvers

Daniel J. Crothers

Jerod E. Tufte
#### Rhett A. POWELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 69757.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

July 23, 1996.

Irene Earns, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jill C. LaHue, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Rhett A. Powell, appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Francois County denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law that are not clearly erroneous. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the circuit court pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision is provided solely for the use of the parties involved.
Case 2:18-cr-00259-JJT Document 12 Filed 02/26/18 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6906
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DONALD EDWARD HALE, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-95-36, CA-97-427-R) Submitted: October 10, 1997 Decided: January 9, 1998 Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald Edward Hale, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Hale , Nos. CR-95-36; CA-97-427-R (W.D. Va. June 17, 1997). 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
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 

Delton Prescott, Jr., 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Carla Hacker-Agnew, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-18-00932-PHX-NVW (BSB)

ORDER 

and 

DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY AND IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS STATUS

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 

Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade (Doc. 16) regarding petitioner’s Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The R&R recommends that 

the Petition be denied. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen 

days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 21 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 6, 72). Petitioner filed objections dated January 17, 2019 (Doc. 17). 

The Court has considered the objections and reviewed the Report and 

Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that 

the court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and 

Recommendation to which specific objections are made). The Court agrees with the 

Magistrate Judge’s determinations, accepts the recommended decision within the meaning 

of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Petitioner’s objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, 

the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”). 
- 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 

Petitioner’s Motion for Evidentiary Hearing says only, “Should the court have any 

question on these matters, the Petitioner would request an evidentiary hearing.” (Doc. 18 

at 4). Petitioner does not state any basis for an evidentiary hearing, what facts would be 

resolved at such hearing, or why such a hearing is not barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge (Doc.16) is accepted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. 18) is 

denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying 

Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 

1). The Clerk shall terminate this action. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a request for a certificate of appealability and leave 

to proceed in forma puaperis on appeal is denied because appellant has not shown that 

“jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether 

the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641, 648 

(2012); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). 

Dated this 28th day of January, 2019.
|EXHIBIT 21
|----------

PMA Capital CorporationSignificant Subsidiaries of Registrant
As of December 31, 2000

|PMA
Capital Corporation (Pennsylvania)
|--------------------------------------

| | PMA
Capital Insurance Company (Pennsylvania)
| | --------------------------------------------

| | Pennsylvania
Manufacturers' Association Insurance Company (Pennsylvania)
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | Pennsylvania
Manufacturers Indemnity Company (Pennsylvania)
| | -----------------------------------------------------------

| | Manufacturers
Alliance Insurance Company (Pennsylvania)
| | -------------------------------------------------------

| | Caliber
One Indemnity Company (Delaware)
| | ----------------------------------------

| | PMA
Re Corporate Capital Limited (UK)
| | -------------------------------------

| | PMA
Holdings Ltd. (Bermuda)          
Pennsylvania Manufacturers' International Insurance Ltd. (Bermuda)
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | Mid-Atlantic
States Investment Company (Delaware)
| | -------------------------------------------------

| | PMA
International Insurance, Cayman Limited (Cayman)
| | ----------------------------------------------------

| | PMA
Holdings, Cayman Ltd. (Cayman)
| | ----------------------------------

| | High
Mountain Reinsurance, Ltd. (Cayman)
| | ----------------------------------------

| | PMA
Insurance SPC, Cayman (Cayman)
| | ----------------------------------

| | Caliber
One Management Company, Inc. (Delaware)
| | -----------------------------------------------

| | PMA
Re Management Company (Pennsylvania)
| | ----------------------------------------

| | PMA
Management Corporation (Pennsylvania)
| | -----------------------------------------

| | PMA
Services Incorporated (Pennsylvania)
| | ----------------------------------------

---
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. 

Larson Namow Burns, 

Defendant.

No. CR-18-0379-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 March 28, 2018. 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 30th day of March, 2018.
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Principal Executive Officer


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 Vision Acquisition III, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Antti WilliamUusiheimala, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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





/s/ Antii William UusiheimalaAntti William UusiheimalaPrincipal Executive OfficerMay 11, 2011
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 694 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 694

  Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require a two-
thirds vote on a rule or order that dispenses with the first reading or 
                      considers a measure as read.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 29, 2009

 Mr. Forbes submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                         the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require a two-
thirds vote on a rule or order that dispenses with the first reading or 
                      considers a measure as read.

    Resolved, That clause 6(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 
of Representatives is amended by inserting before the period at the end 
thereof the following: ``, or a rule or order that would dispense with 
the first reading or consider a measure as read, unless so ordered by a 
vote of two-thirds of the Members voting, a quorum being present''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT B

Audio File submitted via Flash Drive

911 Dispatch Call on January 4, 2017

COP000239
ian oy

- AO 442 (Rev. 11/11) Arrest Warrant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

District of Arizona

United States of America

v. )
Marco Antonio De La Garza Jr., } Case No- 48 - Q 0 0 6 5 ) J
)
)
)
Defendant
ARREST WARRANT

To: — Any authorized law enforcement officer

YOU ARE COMMANDED to arrest and bring before a United States magistrate judge without unnecessary delay
[>]

(name of person to be arrested) _ Marco Antonio De La Garza, Jr.

ae ~ >
who is accused of an offense or violation based on the following document filed with the court: “ot aS
4
OD Indictment ° 1 Superseding Indictment GC Information © Superseding Information cf Complaint

: ; woe
OC Probation Violation Petition 0 Supervised Release Violation Petition OViolation Notice O Order of the Court

This offense is briefly described as follows:

18 U.S.C. 1001 (False Statement or Representation)
18 U.S.C. 1542 (False Statement in Application for Passport)

Date: 02/22/2018

City and state” IACSON) BRAS of) A

ese eeie

that the foregoing document is a full, fe and correct
copy of tho original on file in my office end in my ycus + ;

tody. ad
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT"

DISTTICT O!

Deputy

Issuing officer's signature

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Printed nain

Return

at (city and state)

Date: Q2-2>72F

This warrant was received on (date) 2~ 2° oly , and the person was arrested on (date) 2-@2-2ole-

Arresting officer's signature

‘ MALE ; DHS-01G,

Printed name and title

T

Us Coe. pO WS MTG

COPIES DISTRIBUTED
geccexhibit4v.htm


    

      Exhibit
4(v)

       

      


       

      February
18, 2009

       

      Securities
and Exchange Commission

      100 F.
Street, N.E.

      Washington,
D.C. 20549

      


      
        	
                Subject:

              	 
      	
                General
      Electric Capital Corporation Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
      year ended December 31, 2008 – File No.
1-6461

              


      

      


       

      Dear
Sirs:

       

      Neither
General Electric Capital Corporation (the “Corporation”) nor any of its
subsidiaries has outstanding any instrument with respect to its long-term debt
that is not registered or filed with the Commission and under which the total
amount of securities authorized exceeds 10% of the total assets of the
registrant and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. In accordance with
paragraph (b) (4) (iii) of Item 601 of Regulation S-K
(17 CFR §229.601), the Corporation hereby agrees to furnish to the
Securities and Exchange Commission, upon request, a copy of each instrument
which defines the rights of holders of such long-term debt not filed or
incorporated by reference as an exhibit to the Corporation’s Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008.

       

       

       

      
        	
                Very
      truly yours,

                GENERAL
      ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORPORATION

                 

              
	
                By:

              	
                /s/
      Kathryn A. Cassidy

              	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
                Kathryn
      A. Cassidy

                Senior
      Vice President Corporate Treasury

                and
      Global Funding Operation

              	 
      	 
      


      


      
        
           


        

        
          (1)