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

The following certifications are being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and pursuantto SEC Release No. 33-8238 are being “furnished” to the SEC rather than “filed” either as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure statement, and are not to be incorporated by reference into the Report or any otherfiling of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. The foregoing certifications shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liabilities of Section 18 or Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Dot Hill Systems Corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 

(i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended December 31, 2010 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

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

/s/    DANA W. KAMMERSGARD    

**
 
**

Dana W.Kammersgard 

Chief Executive Officer 

Date: March 9, 2011 

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer ofDot Hill Systems Corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 

(i) theaccompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and 

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

/s/    HANIF I.JAMAL        

**
 
**

Hanif I. Jamal 

Chief Financial Officer 

Date:March 9, 2011
ADA E. ELLIOT, 

Deceased. 

ORDER 

Self-represented Appellant Ian Elliot (Elliot) moves this Court to enjoin or to stay a 

Yellowstone County District Court Order pending his appeal. He states that his need is 

imrnediate because the District Court has ordered sale of the property at issue. Counsel for 

Joseph V. Womack, Special Administrator of the Estate of Ada E. Elliot and the 

Liquidating Partner of Starfire, LP (Womack), responds in opposition. Counsel for Cindy 

Elliot opposes Elliot's motion but has not filed a written response. 

In his motion, Elliot wants to forestall the sale of property in Gallatin County. He 

challenges the appointment of Womack and lists the errors by the court in this underlying 

probate proceeding. Elliot contends that, absent injunctive relief, he and the estate will be 

injured because this "forced-sale" of the property will "deprive[] Ada's heir's property 

rights." 

Womack explains that this probate matter has been pending for more than four years 

in the District Court and that the court has warned Elliot not to interfere with Womack's 

duties. Womack states that the two parcels of real property are to be sold to pay for the 

administration costs of the estate. Following a hearing in April 2021, Wornack offers that 

the District Court specifically stated that Elliot should not interfere with the approved 

forensic accounting and property sales. Womack rnaintains that a stay is not appropriate 

here, that Elliot has not adhered to M. R. App. P. 22, and that the District Court denied his 

motion for a stay previously. 
g

y

IT IS ORDERED that Elliot's Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief or Stay 

Pending Appeal is DENIED and DISMISSED. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to Ian 

Elliot personally. 

DATED this 5 - day of October, 2021. 

Chief Justice 

494 "I ANIL 

J(W_J Justices 

2
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3804

AN ACT

To remove the restriction on the distribution of cerCahuilla Indians. certain members of the Agua Caliente Band of tain revenues from the Mineral Springs parcel to
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3804

AN ACT

To remove the restriction on the distribution of certain revenues from the Mineral Springs parcel to certain members

of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3804 EH

1 SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF RESTRICTION ON DISTRIBUTION

2 OF CERTAIN REVENUES.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The fourth undesignated para4 graph in section 3(b) of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to pro5 vide for the equalization of allotments on the Agua

6 Caliente (Palm Springs) Reservation in California, and for

7 other purposes’’ approved September 21, 1959 (25 U.S.C.

8 951 et seq.), is amended by striking ‘‘east: Provided,’’ and

9 all that follows through ‘‘deceased member.’’ and inserting

10 ‘‘east.’’.

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

12 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to net rents, prof13 its, and other revenues that accrue on or after the date

14 of enactment of this Act.

15 (c) AGREEMENT TO MAKE PAYMENT.—The Congress

16 finds that the Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians, in

17 Tribal Ordinance Number 22, dated August 6, 1996, has

18 agreed to make payments permited by reason of the

19 amendment made by subsection (a). The Congress expects
3

•HR 3804 EH

1 the Band to make such payments within 180 days after

2 the date of enactment of this Act.

Passed the House of Representatives September 26,

1996.

Attest:

Clerk.
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 4 Filed 02/23/09 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 23

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

To
the Board of Directors and Shareholders of FEI Company
Hillsboro, Oregon

We
consent to the use in Registration Statement Nos. 333-110264, 333-44954, 333-92629, 333-92631, 333-57331,
333-32911, and 333-08863 of FEI Company on Form S-8 of our report dated March 12, 2004 (which report includes an explanatory paragraph referring to
the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards ("SFAS") No. 142, "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets" and SFAS No. 146,
"Accounting for Costs Associated with Exit or Disposal Activities"), appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of FEI Company for
the year ended December 31, 2003.

/s/
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Portland, Oregon,
March 12, 2004

---

QuickLinks
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 22, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-50651 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus PEDRO GOMEZ-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-205-ALL-PRM

-------------------- Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Pedro Gomez-Gonzalez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction of illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Gomez-Gonzalez argues that in light of recent Supreme Court precedent the sentencing provisions set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional and that AlmendarezTorres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), should be overruled.No. 04-50651 -2- Gomez-Gonzalez argues that the rulings in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington , 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), cast doubt upon the continued validity of Almendarez-Torres
. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). The Court’s decision in Blakely , 124 S. Ct. at 2537, and more recently in United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738, 756 (2005), also did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. This court therefore must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ORDER ESTABLISHING TRIAL DOCKET FOR THE MONTH OF 

 APRIL, 2010, BEFORE THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN*

Listed below are the cases on this Court's trial docket for the month of April, 2010.

Counsel will be notified when their case reaches No. 5. After such notice, counsel should

be prepared to begin trial any time on 48 hours notice. It is counsel's responsibility in all

cases after they have been so notified to contact my clerk, Marilyn Orem, at 234-5147, to

ascertain the status of the trial docket. Unless otherwise notified, this Court commences

trial at 8:45 a.m. PLEASE BE PROMPT!

1. 09-11949 KAID V. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE

2. 08-12960 FOR MOTOR CO. V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

3. 09-10490 ALERIS ALUMINUM CANADA V. VALEO, INC.

4. 09-12106 WILLIAMS V. JP MORGAN MORTGAGE ACQUISITION, ET.AL

5. 09-11380 RIVIERA DISTRIBUTORS V. RDI OF MICHIGAN, LLC

6. 09-12003 TOOL-PLAS SYSTEMS V. CAMACO, LLC

7. 09-12782 HERRON V. WILSHIRE CREDIT CORP.

8. 09-11290 BRICKLAYERS PENSION TRUST V. EVERLAST MASONRY

9. 09-10860 TATANGELO V. MGM GRAND DETROIT, LLC

 

s/Patrick J. Duggan 

Patrick J. Duggan

United States District Judge

Dated: February 2, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on February 2, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marilyn Orem 

Case Manager

*PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT TRIAL WILL NOT BEGIN BEFORE THE FINAL

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE DATE.

IF THERE IS A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PENDING, FINAL PRETRIAL

CONFERENCE WILL BE RESCHEDULED APPROXIMATELY 7 DAYS AFTER ANY

DECISION ON SUCH MOTION.

2:09-cv-10490-PJD-RSW Doc # 60 Filed 02/02/10 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 1134
2:09-cv-11457-NGE-RSW Doc # 34-2 Filed 05/06/10 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 199
2:09-cv-11457-NGE-RSW Doc # 34-2 Filed 05/06/10 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 200
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Kenneth Williams,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 08-14246

Costco Wholesale Corporation, Honorable Sean F. Cox

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Kenneth Williams (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Costco

Wholesale Corporation (“Defendant”) in state court. Defendant removed the action to this Court

on October 6, 2008.

On April 23, 2009, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Amend Complaint, wherein he

seeks to add a claim under the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.

This Court held a status conference with the parties on April 29, 2009. The Court then

issued a 2nd Scheduling Order in this matter, extending discovery until June 30, 2009, and motion

cut-off until July 31, 2009.

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that leave to amend “shall be

freely given when justice so requires.” A motion to amend, however, should be denied “if the

amendment is brought in bad faith, for dilatory purposes, results in undue delay or prejudice to

the opposing party, or would be futile.” Crawford v. Roane, 53 F.3d 750, 753 (6th Cir. 1995).

Defendant has not filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend and there is no

indication that the requested motion is brought in bad faith or for dilatory purposes, or that it

2:08-cv-14246-SFC-MKM Doc # 18 Filed 06/12/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 111
would result in undue delay or prejudice to Defendant.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint within seven (7) days of the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: June 12, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

June 12, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager

2:08-cv-14246-SFC-MKM Doc # 18 Filed 06/12/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 112
Exhibit 32.01    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 Endeavor Uranium, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jennifer Karlovsky, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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 and belief:  (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 result of operations of the Company.   /s/ Jennifer Karlovsky By: Jennifer Karlovsky Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  November 14, 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 Annual of Gold Phoenix Minerals, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of
the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 operation of the
Company.

                                        /s/ Michael R. Fitzsimonds
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Michael R. Fitzsimonds
                                        President, Chief Executive Officer and
                                        Chief Financial Officer


                                       A-1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHARLES ANTHONY ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 08-14790

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

JUDGMENT

In this action, Plaintiff seeks review of the Social Security Commissioner’s denial

of his request for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits. Plaintiff applied for

benefits on February 6, 2006, alleging that he became disabled on January 15, 2006. The

parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In an Opinion and Order entered

on this date, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion and granted Defendant’s motion.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE..

DATE: November 30, 2009 s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Charles Anthony Anderson

2559 Garland

Detroit, MI 48214

AUSA Theresa Urbanic

Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon

2:08-cv-14790-PJD-MAR Doc # 34 Filed 11/30/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 319
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 10512 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
CESAR ALEJANDRO LOMA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13

- CR

- 200

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Cesar Alejandro Loma appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute marijuana. Loma argues that the district court erred by refusing to grant him

a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 . He maintains that he was incorrectly denied credit because his statement to the probation officer that he was involved in the conspiracy for

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 18, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-10512 Document: 00512939335 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/18/2015No. 14

- 10512

three weeks, not three months, does not concern relevant conduct and did not impact his guidelines calculation. We examine the denial of a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under a standard of review even more deferential than a pure clearly erroneous standard. United States v. Angeles

- Mendoza , 407 F.3d 742, 753 (5th Cir. 2005). We will affirm the denial of a downward adjustment for accepta nce of responsibility under § 3E1.1 unless the denial is without foundation. United States v. Solis , 299 F.3d 420, 458 (5th Cir. 2002). The defendant has the burden of demonstrating that he is entitled to a reduction. United States v. Perez , 915 F.2d 94 7, 950 (5th Cir. 1990). While Loma pleaded guilty and truthfully admitted his offense conduct in his factual resume, Lopez minimized his role in the conspiracy by diminishing the time period that he was involved in the conspiracy and by maintaining that t he ledger found in his house was used in his construction business rather than to keep records of drug sales. The presentence report and addendum, which the district court adopted, relied on both these facts to support the denial of the adjustment. A def endant’s attempt to minimize conduct provides a sufficient foundation for the denial of a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. United States v. Cabrera , 288 F.3d 163, 175

- 77 (5th Cir. 2002). Given t he foregoing , the district court’s ruli ng that
Loma had not accepted responsibility was not clearly erroneous or without foundation. See id

. AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 14-10512 Document: 00512939335 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/18/2015
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 33094]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16189]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[Order No. 828]


Approval of Manufacturing Activity Within Foreign-Trade Zone 21, 
Charleston, South Carolina; Hubner Manufacturing Corporation 
(Industrial Bellows/Molded Parts)

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, Sec. 400.28(a)(2) of the Board's regulations, requires 
approval of the Board prior to commencement of new manufacturing/
processing activity within existing zone facilities;
    Whereas, the South Carolina State Ports Authority, grantee of FTZ 
21, has requested authority under Sec. 400.32(b)(1) of the Board's 
regulations on behalf of the Hubner Manufacturing Corporation, to 
manufacture industrial bellows and plastic/rubber molded parts under 
zone procedures within FTZ 21, Charleston, South Carolina (filed 11-30-
95, FTZ Docket A(32b1)-20-95; Doc. 43-96, assigned 5-23-96);
    Whereas, pursuant to Sec. 400.32(b)(1), the Commerce Department's 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration has the authority to act 
for the Board in making such decisions on new manufacturing/processing 
activity under certain circumstances, including situations where the 
proposed zone benefits do not involve the election of nonprivileged 
foreign status on items involving inverted tariff benefits 
(Sec. 400.32(b)(1)(iii)); and,
    Whereas, the request, as amended, states that Hubner Manufacturing 
Corporation will destroy all foreign status scrap merchandise within 
FTZ 21;
    Whereas, the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, acting 
for the Board, pursuant to Sec. 400.32(b)(1), concurring in the 
findings and recommendations of the FTZ Staff and Executive Secretary, 
approves the request;
    Now, therefore, the application for manufacturing authority is 
approved, subject to the Act and the Board's regulations, including 
Sec. 400.28, and subject to the following restrictions:
    1. Privileged foreign status (19 CFR Sec. 146.41) shall be elected 
on all foreign-origin merchandise admitted to the zone for the Hubner 
Manufacturing Corporation operation; and,
    2. Initial approval is for a period of three (3) years from the 
date of activation of zone procedures at the plant, subject to 
extension upon review.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 17th day of June 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, 
Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
    Attest:
John J. Da Ponte, Jr.,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-16189 Filed 6-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 91-12 Filed 03/14/11 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 91-12 Filed 03/14/11 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 91-12 Filed 03/14/11 Page 3 of 3
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Cynthia PITTS, Appellant. Cynthia PITTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 68134 & 69937.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

Oct. 15, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Nov. 18,1996.

Application to Transfer Denied Jan. 21,1997.

Charles Clifford Schwartz, Jr., St. Louis, for appellant.

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

Before CRAHAN, P.J., and GRIMM and HOFF, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the judgment and sentence entered following her conviction by a jury of delivery of a controlled substance in violation of § 195.211 RSMo 1989 Cum.Supp. and from the denial of her motion to vacate the judgment and sentence pursuant to Rule 29.15. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).