alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**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 accompanying Quarterly Report of Vanguard Natural Resources,
      LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three and nine months ended
      September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
      the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Scott W. Smith, President and Chief Executive
      Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 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, 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 Company.





/s/
                Scott W. SmithScott
                W. SmithPresident
                and Chief Executive Officer
              (Principal
                Executive Officer)
              
              December 6, 2007
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1
























































<PAGE>   2



                        IMC HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 1997-3

                              Officer's Certificate




In connection with the above-referenced trust and pursuant to Section 8.16 of
the related Pooling and Servicing Agreement ("Agreement"), IMC Mortgage Company
(as "Servicer"), hereby confirms the following:

(i)  a review of the activities of the Servicer during 1997 and of performance
under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement for the calendar year 1997.


                              IMC Mortgage Company


                              By:  /s/ Thomas G. Middleton
                                  ---------------------------------------------
                                       Thomas G. Middleton
                                       President & Chief Operating Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GREGORY M c CLELLAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

S. LOZANO, Parole Agent

- CDCR; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 16

- 15149

D.C. No. 1:10

- cv

- 00386

- LJO

- MJS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Michael J. Seng

, Magistrate Judge, Presiding **

Submitted August 9, 2017 * * *

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Gregory McClellan appeals pro se from the magistrate judge’s January 15,

2016 order denying McClellan in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status in his 42 U.S.C.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** McClellan consented in writing to proceed before a magistrate judge.

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Defendants’ consent is inferred from their conduct during

litigation. See Roell v. Withrow , 538 U.S. 580, 590 (2003).

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

AUG 15 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 15149

§ 1983 action . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.

Washington v. L .A. Cty

. Sheriff’s Dep’t , 833 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2016). We

affirm.

The magistrate judge properly denied IFP status because at the time

McClellan brought this acti on, McClellan was a prisoner and had accumulated

three strikes. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); O’Neal v. Price , 531 F.3d 1146, 1154 (9th

Cir. 2008) (“ Because § 1915(g) . . . does not distinguish between dismissa ls with

and without prejudice, . . . a dismissal without prejudice may count as a strike

. ”

(citation omitted))

.

Defendants’ request for j udicial notice ( Docket Entry No. 25) is denied.

Defendants’ motions to strike evidence attached to the reply brief (Docket

Entry Nos. 31 and 32) are granted.

AFFIRMED

.
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

 Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Joint Reply to Response 

to Motion to Stay Seizure of Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 383), in which the Defendants request 

permission to file a joint reply to the Government’s Response to the Emergency Motion 

to Stay Seizure of Attorneys’ Fees and Request for Immediate Hearing (Doc. 371) in 

excess of the page limitation. Finding good cause appearing, the motion will be granted. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File Joint Reply to Response to 

Motion to Stay Seizure of Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 383) is granted. Defendants are 

granted leave to file their replies jointly and exceed the page limit in their joint reply. 

 Dated this 16th day of November, 2018. 

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

United States of America, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Michael Lacey, et al., 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CR-18-00422-PHX-SPL

ORDER 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 386 Filed 11/16/18 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofSally Holdings LLC and Sally Capital Inc. (the “Companies”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark J. Flaherty,Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of each of the Companies,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                 The Reportfully 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 result of operations of the Companies.

 

 
|                | By:    |   /s/ MARK J. FLAHERTY                     |
|---------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                |   | Mark J. Flaherty                                     |
|                |   | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of |
|                |   | Sally Holdings LLC and Sally Capital Inc.            |
|                |   |                                                 |
|                |   |                                                 |
| August 7, 2008 |   |                                                 |

 

----
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 MEMSIC, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Yang Zhao, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



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



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



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ YANG ZHAO          
|Yang Zhao              
|Chief Executive Officer
|August 12, 2009        

This Certification shall not be deemed part of the Report or incorporated by reference into any of
the Companys filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission by implication or by any reference in any such filings to the Report.
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

Tom Henze (Bar No. 003262)

Janey Henze Cook (Bar No. 022496)

HENZE COOK MURPHY, PLLC

722 East Osborn Road, Suite 120

Phoenix, Arizona 85014

(602) 956-1730

tom@henzecookmurphy.com

janey@henzecookmurphy.com

Attorneys for Michael Lacey

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MICHAEL G. LACEY, et al.,

Defendants.

 CASE NO. CR-18-00422-PHX-SPL(BSB)

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS

Henze Cook Murphy, PLLC hereby provides notice of its change of address. The 

firm changed its address, effective March 1, 2018, (prior to the start of this case) but the 

Clerk of Court has advised that this Notice is still necessary. The firm’s current address 

is:

HENZE COOK MURPHY, PLLC

722 East Osborn Road, Suite 120

Phoenix, Arizona 85014

All other contact information remains the same.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 15th day of May, 2018.

HENZE COOK MURPHY, PLLC

By: _____________________________

Janey Henze Cook

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 144 Filed 05/15/18 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

722 East Osborn Rd, Suite 120

Phoenix, Arizona 85014

Attorney for Michael G. Lacey

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 15, 2018, I electronically transmitted the attached 

documents to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a 

Notice of Electronic Filing to counsel of record, including the following CM/ECF 

registrants: 

Kevin Rapp

Assistant United States Attorney

District of Arizona

Two Renaissance Square

40 N. Central Ave., Suite 1200

Phoenix, AZ 85004-4408

Kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov

Dominc Lanza

Dominic.lanza@usjoj.gov

MARGARET PERLMETER

margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov)

Reginald E. Jones

Trial Attorney

United States Department of Justice

Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section

1400 New York Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530

Reginald.jones4@usdoj.gov

By: /s/ Jackie Beavers

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 144 Filed 05/15/18 Page 2 of 2
Amendment No. 1 to Demand Promissory Note


 Exhibit 4.2 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 TO 
 DEMAND PROMISSORY NOTE 
 Dated February 23, 2009 
 REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE DEMAND PROMISSORY NOTE (the “Note”) dated September 24, 2007 and effective as of August 10,
2007 by PREFERRED INVESTMENT SOLUTIONS CORP., a Delaware corporation (the “Maker”) to KENMAR GLOBAL TRUST, a Delaware business trust (the “Holder”). 
 Pursuant to the terms of the Note, any portion of the principal amount of the Note which has not been demanded by the Holder prior to August 31,
2009 shall be due and payable by the Maker, along with all accrued and unpaid interest thereon on August 31, 2009, unless Maker and Holder agree to an extension thereof. 
 By this Amendment No. 1, Maker and Holder agree to modify the terms of the Note such that portion of the principal amount of the Note which has not
been demanded by the Holder prior to August 31, 2010 shall be due and payable by the Maker, along with all accrued and unpaid interest thereon on August 31, 2010, unless Maker and Holder agree to an extension thereof. 
 All other terms and provisions of the Note shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. 
 This Amendment is made in the State of New York and shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of said State, without regard to
conflict of laws principles. 
 [Signature Page to Follow] 
  

 1 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Maker and the Holder have executed this Amendment as of the date first
written above. 
  

			
	PREFERRED INVESTMENT SOLUTIONS CORP.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Kenneth A. Shewer
		 	Name: Kenneth A. Shewer
		 	Title: Chairman


  
  

			
	KENMAR GLOBAL TRUST
		
	By:	 	 Preferred Investment Solutions Corp.,
 its
Managing Owner

		
		 	
		
	By:	 	/s/ Marc S. Goodman
		 	Name: Marc S. Goodman
		 	Title: President


  

 2
April 25, 2014



Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F. Street N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20549



Ladies and Gentlemen:



We were previously principal accountants for China
Southern Airlines Company Limited and, under the date of March 26, 2013, we reported on the consolidated financial statements
of China Southern Airlines Company Limited as of and for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2012 and the effectiveness
of China Southern Airlines Company Limited’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2012. On March
26, 2013, we were notified that the auditor-client relationship between KPMG and China Southern Airlines Company Limited would cease
upon completion of the audit of China Southern Airlines Company Limited’s consolidated financial statements as of and for
the year ended December 31, 2012 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2012,
and the issuance of our reports thereon. On April 26, 2013, we completed our audit and issued our reports that were included in
China Southern Airlines Company Limited’s Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2012 and the auditor-client relationship
ceased.



We have read China Southern Airlines Company
Limited’s statements included under Item 16F of its annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2013, and
we agree with such statements, except that we are not in a position to agree or disagree with the statements that: (1) “During
the two most recent fiscal years and through April 26, 2013, neither we nor any person on our behalf consulted PwC regarding either
(i) the application of accounting principles to a specific transaction, either completed or proposed; or the type of audit opinion
that might be rendered on our financial statements, or (ii) any matter that was either the subject of a “disagreement”
(as defined in Item 16F(a)(1)(iv) of Form 20-F and related instructions to Item 16-F of Form 20-F) with PwC or a “reportable
event” (as defined in Item 16F(a)(1)(v) of Form 20-F).” and (2) “Also, during the two most recent fiscal years
and through April 26, 2013, we did not obtain any written report or oral advice that PwC concluded was an important factor considered
by us in reaching a decision as to the accounting, auditing or financial reporting issue.”



Very truly yours,



/s/ KPMG

Hong Kong, China

April 25, 2014





1
EXHIBIT 

F 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 22-7 Filed 04/09/18 Page 1 of 4
Exhibit F

Current [04/03/2018] Ads on Backpage from different U.S. Cities:

Blue rectangles were added to this document to provide some privacy to the posters as well as not to advertise for them. 

(1 of 5) Boston 

(2 of 5) Cleveland:

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 22-7 Filed 04/09/18 Page 2 of 4
(3 of 5) Phoenix: 

(4 of 5) Phoenix:

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 22-7 Filed 04/09/18 Page 3 of 4
(5 of 5) Portland: 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 22-7 Filed 04/09/18 Page 4 of 4
H. Res. 941 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 3, 2009. 

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 

shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

4154) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the new carryover basis rules in order to prevent tax increases and the imposition of compliance burdens on many 

more estates than would benefit from repeal, to retain the estate tax with a $3,500,000 exemption, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are 

waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. 

The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order 

against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage 

without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 

equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and 

(2) one motion to recommit. 
2 

•HRES 941 EH 

SEC. 2. In the engrossment of H.R. 4154, the Clerk 

shall— 

(1) add the text of H.R. 2920, as passed by the 

House, as new matter at the end of H.R. 4154; 

(2) conform the title of H.R. 4154 to reflect the addition to the engrossment of the text of H.R. 2920; 

(3) assign appropriate designations to provisions 

within the engrossment; and 

(4) conform provisions for short titles within the engrossment. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18.
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of NeurogesX, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of NeurogesX, Inc.



|                    |  |  |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                              
|------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 13, 2010 |  |  |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                              
|                    |  |  |  | 
|                    |  |  |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Anthony A. DiTonno                                                       
|                    |  |  |  |  |  |     |  | Anthony A. DiTonno                                                           
|                    |  |  |  |  |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer                                        
|                    |  |  |  |  |  |     |  | (Principal Executive Officer)                                                
|                    |  |  |  | 
|                    |  |  |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Stephen F. Ghiglieri                                                     
|                    |  |  |  |  |  |     |  | Stephen F. Ghiglieri                                                         
|                    |  |  |  |  |  |     |  | Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer
|                    |  |  |  |  |  |     |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
H. Res. 970 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 13, 2010. 

Whereas Mark Ingram was raised in Flint, Michigan; 

Whereas Mark Ingram attended Grand Blanc Community 

High School and Flint Southwestern Academy, where he 

distinguished himself as a running back and cornerback; 

Whereas Mark Ingram was a 4-year starter in high school, 

and rushed for 4,926 yards and 58 touchdowns in his 

final 2 seasons; 

Whereas, during his high school football career, Mark Ingram 

was honored with the Saginaw Valley MVP Award, 

named Area Player of the Year, and was an All-State selection; 

Whereas, in 2009, Mark Ingram led the University of Alabama to the Southeastern Conference (SEC) Championship and rushed 113 yards and scored 3 touchdowns in 

the championship game; 

Whereas, in 2009, Mark Ingram broke the University of Alabama single-season rushing record with 1,542 yards, was 

named the SEC offensive player of the year, scored 18 

total touchdowns, and finished the season with 322 receiving yards; 

Whereas, in 2009, Mark Ingram was named an All SEC 

First Team Selection, a Walter Camp 1st team All-Amer-
2 

•HRES 970 EH 

ican, and an American Football Coaches Association AllAmerican; 

Whereas Mark Ingram is the first Heisman Trophy winner 

from the University of Alabama; 

Whereas Mark Ingram is only the third sophomore in history 

to win the Heisman Trophy; 

Whereas Mark Ingram has made the Dean’s List at the University of Alabama; 

Whereas Mark Ingram’s Heisman win brings tremendous 

pride to his hometown of Flint, Michigan; 

Whereas, December 12, 2009, has been declared Mark 

Ingram Day in the City of Flint; 

Whereas the sport of football is an important national pastime that helps foster teamwork, leadership skills, sportsmanship, and camaraderie; and 

Whereas football can help build self-esteem and promote exercise and a more active and healthy lifestyle: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives congratulates Flint native and running back Mark Ingram on winning 

the 2009 Heisman Trophy and honors both his athletic and 

academic achievements. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

TUCSON DIVISION

Center for Biological Diversity, 

Plaintiff,

v.

E. Scott Pruitt, in his official capacity as 

Administrator of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No: 4:18-cv-00050-TUC-JAS

[PROPOSED] ORDER

The Court has reviewed Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). After consideration of the motion and the 

papers submitted in support of and in opposition to the motion, and finding that good 

cause exists for the motion to be denied, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Federal 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED. The Court will retain jurisdiction of the 

above-captioned matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Case 4:18-cv-00050-JAS Document 22 Filed 05/03/18 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit F

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 269-6 Filed 08/17/18 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 269-6 Filed 08/17/18 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 269-6 Filed 08/17/18 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 269-6 Filed 08/17/18 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 269-6 Filed 08/17/18 Page 5 of 5
#### Timothy DUGGER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 63871.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

Aug. 31, 1993.

John Klosterman, St. Louis, for appellant.

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

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Timothy Dugger, appeals from a dismissal of his Rule 24.035 motion as untimely in the Circuit Court of St. Louis Coun*830ty. We affirm. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. As we further find an extended opinion would have no prec-edential value, we affirm the motion court’s order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties here involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.