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

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with this Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2008 (the Report) of PennantPark Investment Corporation (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Arthur H. Penn, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:



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



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



|                             
|-----------------------------
|                             
|/s/ Arthur H. Penn           
|Arthur H. Penn August 5,
2008
<PAGE>



Exhibit 99.1

FIRST ALLIANCE MORTGAGE EQUITY TRUST 1997-2
OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE


Pursuant to the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated June 1, 1997
among First Alliance Mortgage Company as Seller and Servicer and The Chase
Manhattan Bank as Trustee, I have reviewed the activities of the Servicer during
the year ended December 31, 1997. I have also reviewed its performance under the
Pooling and Servicing Agreement and to the best of my knowledge, based on such
review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement
throughout such period.


By:     /s/ Brian Chisick
     -----------------------------
Name:   Brian Chisick
Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of Amber Hill, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ending September 30, 2007, I, Julia J. Alexander, Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that: 1. Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2007, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated:  February 5, 2008 AMBER HILL, INC. By: /s/ Julia J. Alexander Julia J. Alexander  Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of Amber Hill, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ending September 30, 2007, I, Hilary L. Davis, Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that: 1. Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2007, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated:  February 5, 2008 AMBER HILL, INC. By: /s/ Hilary L. Davis Hilary L. Davis
<PAGE>

                                                                   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 on Form 10-K of Northway
Financial, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2004 , as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer for the Company,
certifies 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.

         This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K ("Item 601(b)(32)") promulgated
under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). In accordance with clause (ii) of
Item 601(b)(32), this certification (A) shall not be deemed "filed" for
purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the
liability of that section, and (B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except
to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.


                                              /s/ RICHARD P. ORSILLO
                                              --------------------------------
                                              Richard P. Orsillo
                                              Senior Vice President
                                              and Chief Financial Officer

Date: March 23, 2005
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 Quarterly Report of Oak Tree Educational Partners, 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, Kellis Veach, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Oak Tree Educational Partners, Inc. and will be retained by Oak Tree Educational Partners, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





/s/  Kellis VeachKellis VeachChief Financial Officer(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)





May 16, 2011
```
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 110 (Thursday, June 6, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 28903]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14292]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-32,327]

VIP/Vanguard Industrial Products, Incorporated, Brighton, MI; 
Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on May 13, 1996 in response to a worker petition which 
was filed on behalf of workers at VIP/Vanguard Industrial Products, 
Incorporated, Brighton, Michigan.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no 
purpose; and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of May 1996.
Russell T. Kile,
Acting Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of 
Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 96-14292 Filed 6-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
```
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 II, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 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
      BergerPrincipal
      Financial OfficerAugust
                12, 2010
#### MERCANTILE BANK OF TRENTON N.A., Respondent, v. Alfred and Mary Ann RYDER, et al., Appellants.

No. WD 49058.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

March 21, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 2, 1995.

Application to Transfer Denied June 20, 1995.

Jeffrey S. Eastman, Kansas City, for appellants.

William S. Lewis, Trenton, for respondent.

Before HANNA, P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and SMART, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from a summary judgment in favor of Mercantile Bank of Trenton, NA.., against Alfred and Mary Ann Ryder and Ryder Farms, Inc. In an action by Mercantile Bank to set aside certain transfers of real and personal property as fraudulent. Defendants contend on appeal that the trial court erred in failing to join Thomas and Lucille Ryder, alleged owners of stock in Ryder Farms, Inc., as indispensable parties, and in granting summary judgment in favor of Mercantile Bank on the issue of fraudulent transfers.

Defendants Alfred and Mary Ann Ryder, anticipating the collection efforts of the Bank, transferred all of their assets to a newly formed corporation. The Ryders, who were then allegedly insolvent, continued to occupy and to use as their own all of the property they had transferred to the corporation. The trial court granted summary judgment to Mercantile Bank, holding that the transfers to the corporation were fraudulent. The undisputed facts and admissions of defendants related to “badges of fraud” show that the transfers were fraudulent. Plaintiff Mercantile Bank is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. Thomas and Lucille Ryder, to whom Alfred and Mary Ann Ryder allegedly transferred all of their stock in Ryder Farms, are not necessary parties because it is the corporation’s alleged assets, not the stock belonging to Thomas and Lucille Ryder, which the Bank seeks to attach.

Judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
“Exhibit A”

Filed Under Seal

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1020-1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 101 (Thursday, May 23, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 25858]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12909]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. PR96-7-000]


Transok, Inc.; Notice of Petition for Rate Approval

May 17, 1996.
    Take notice that on May 1, 1996, Transok, Inc. (Transok), filed 
pursuant to section 284.123(b)(2) of the Commission's regulations, a 
petition for rate approval requesting that the Commission approve as 
fair and equitable rates for interruptible transportation services 
performed under section 311(a)(2) of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 
(NGPA) on Transok's Oklahoma Anadarko System.
    Transok proposes a new system-wide maximum rate for interruptible 
service of $0.2541 per MMBtu delivered. Transok will also charge each 
shipper the shipper's pro rate share of actual compressor fuel plus 0.5 
percent per volumes delivered for system losses. Transok proposes an 
effective date of May 1, 1996.
    Transok states that it is an intrastate pipeline within the meaning 
of section 2(16) of the NGPA and it owns and operates two intrastate 
pipeline systems in the State of Oklahoma (the Anadarko System and the 
Traditional System), and one system in the State of Louisiana. Transok 
here proposes rates for the Anadarko System only.
    Pursuant to section 284.123(b)(2)(ii), if the Commission does not 
act within 150 days of the filing date, the rate will be deemed to be 
fair and equitable and not in excess of an amount which interstate 
pipelines would be permitted to charge for similar transportation 
service. The Commission may, prior to the expiration of the 150-day 
period, extend the time for action or institute a proceeding to afford 
parties an opportunity for written comments and for the oral 
presentation of views, data, and arguments.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must 
file a motion to intervene with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 in accordance 
with sections 385.211 and 385.214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure. All motions must be filed with the Secretary of the 
Commission on or before June 3, 1996. The petition for rate approval is 
on file with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-12909 Filed 5-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
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 

Thomas Bon Stout, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

County of Maricopa, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-17-04046-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 

United States Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf’s Report and Recommendation 

(“R&R”). (Doc. 16.) The R&R recommends that the Court dismiss the Petition with 

prejudice. (Doc. 16 at 20.) The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had 

fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could 

be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. Id. at 20 (citing Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)). 

 The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to 

review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 

(1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is 

not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must 

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 

objected to.”). The Court will accept the R&R and dismiss the Petition with prejudice. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in 
- 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 

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended 

disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with 

instructions.”). 

IT IS ORDERED:

 1. Magistrate Judge Metcalf’s R&R (Doc. 16) is ACCEPTED. 

 2. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED 

WITH PREJUDICE. 

 3. The Clerk of Court shall TERMINATE this action. 

 4. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the 

event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability 

because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

 Dated this 25th day of May, 2018. 

Honorable G. Murray Snow

United States District Judge
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-12-00069-CV

Raul Cruz and Tony Cruz, Appellants

v.

Ricardo Cruz, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. C-1-CV-11-009955, HONORABLE ERIC SHEPPERD, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Raul Cruz and Tony Cruz appeal from a final judgment awarding appellee

Ricardo Cruz $1,092.53 in damages. After Raul and Tony failed to file a brief by a Court-imposed

deadline of August 9, 2012, the clerk of this Court wrote them advising that their brief was overdue

and that if they did not file a brief or otherwise respond by October 26, 2012, their appeal would be

subject to dismissal for want of prosecution. The October 26 deadline has passed, and Raul and 1

Tony have made no response. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See

Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a); 42.3(b).

Because the parties share a common surname, we will use their first names to avoid 1

confusion.
__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton and Henson

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: November 14, 2012

2
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Jimmie COLE, Defendant/Appellant. Jimmie COLE, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 61616, 64326.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Oct. 4, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Nov. 9, 1994.

Application to Transfer Denied Dec. 20, 1994.

Henry B. Robertson, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Becky Owenson Kilpatrick, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., CRIST, S.J. and CRAHAN, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of three counts of rape, § 566.030, RSMo Supp.1992. He was sentenced by the court as a prior and persistent sexual offender to three consecutive thirty year sentences to be served without probation or parole, § 558.018, RSMo Supp.1993. We affirm.

We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit; the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum *688for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
### Nebraska Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinions

NOT Selected for Posting to Court Website

(r eleased the week prior to October 4, 2022 

### )

The following memorandum opinions were filed by the Nebraska Court of

Appeals and can be viewed using SSCALES :



### None Available

The above

- listed memorandum opinions c an be viewed online through the

appellate court case search available by subscription through Nebra ska.gov:

http://www.nebraska.gov/subscriber/

.

Current subscribers to Nebraska.gov can search appellate court cases here:

http s ://www.nebraska.gov/courts/s c ca les/

.
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 Quarterly Report of Phoenix International Ventures, Inc.
(“the Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“the Report”), I,
Teja N. Shariff, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to my knowledge:




(1)  the
Report fully comply 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.




May
      12, 2008
              By:
              /s/ Teja
      N. ShariffTeja
      N. ShariffChief
      Financial Officer
#### Dennis MURPHY, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 65206.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Dec. 27, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 31, 1995.

Application to Transfer Denied March 21, 1995.

Dave Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joanne E. Beal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before GRIMM, C.J., REINHARD, P.J., and CRAHAN, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial, after an eviden-tiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 116 (Friday, June 14, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 30209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15069]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket 87-10; Notice 8]


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Power-Operated Window, 
Partition, and Roof Panel Systems; Correction

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; DOT.

ACTION: Correction.

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

SUMMARY: In Docket 87-10, Notice 6, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
beginning on page 28124 in the issue of Tuesday, June 4, 1996, make the 
following correction:
    On page 28124 in the second column, 25th line, change the words 
``Notice 6'' to ``Notice 7.''

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Paul Atelsek, Office of the Chief 
Counsel, NCC-20, telephone (202) 366-2992.

    Issued: June 10, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-15069 Filed 6-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
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 SMARTHEAT INC. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "Report"), I, Jun Wang, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, 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/ JUN WANG


Jun Wang


Chief Executive Officer





May 9, 2008