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 TheSarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002**

 

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of The MillsCorporation (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2004 filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),we, Laurence C. Siegel and Mary Jane Morrow, Chief Executive Officer and ChiefFinancial Officer, respectively, of the Company, certify on the date hereofthat to our knowledge:

 

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

 

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

Dated: March 31, 2005

 

 
|   | /s/ Laurence C. Siegel                      |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|
|   | Laurence C. Siegel  Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                                        |
|   | /s/ Mary Jane Morrow                        |
|   | Mary Jane Morrow  Chief Financial Officer   |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 03-2143

AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

DANIEL J. CAPUANO, JR.; JACK CAPUANO;

UNITED SANITATION, INC.,

Defendants, Appellants,

A. CAPUANO BROS., INC.; CAPUANO ENTERPRISES, INC.,

Defendants.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on August 18, 2004 is

amended as follows:

On page 19, line 17: "Capuanos's" should be "Capuanos";

On page 33, line 22: "Transportation" should be

"Sanitation";

On page 38, lines 4, 18 and 20 and on page 39, line 5: All

references to "section 9607(3)" should instead read "section

9607(a)(3)";

On page 38, line 23: The first reference to "persons"

[inside quotation mark] should be "person";

On page 48, line 10: "Capuanos" should be "Capuanos'".
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 02, 2020.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 02, 2020

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A21I0068. AMY S THAL v. NANCY B. THAL, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN 

HUNTER ROOP et al.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2018CV313132
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     Textainer Equipment Income Fund V, L.P. 1997 10K
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000915194
<NAME>                        Textainer Equipment Income Fund V, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         108
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3,607
<ALLOWANCES>                                   387
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               215
<PP&E>                                         79,899
<DEPRECIATION>                                 13,833
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 69,609
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,319
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     68,290
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   69,609
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               14,012
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  10,159
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (108)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3,961
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3,961
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32



         Statement Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


The undersigned, W.E. Tucker, and CEO of Global 1 Investment Holding
Corporation. a Georgia corporation, hereby makes the following certification as
required by Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with respect to
the following of this quarterly report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934:

Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2007.

The undersigned certifies that the above periodic report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
information contained in the above quarterly report fairly presents, in all
respects, the financial condition of Global 1 Investment Holding Corporation and
results of its operations.

By:/s/ W.E. Tucker

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

W.E. Tucker, CEO
February 14, 2008
Unassociated Document


Exhibit 4.2


 


PROMISSORY NOTE



 



	$30,000.00	Fairfax, Virginia 
March 13, 2013







 




FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Next Generation Energy Corp. (the "Debtor"), promise to pay to the order of Actual Investments, LLC (the "Creditor"), without offset, the sum of THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($30,000.00), together with interest on the unpaid principal from the date set forth below until paid, payable in full no later than March 12, 2014. Interest payable at the rate of 6 percent (6%) per annum shall accrue on any balance from execution of this Promissory Note. Any payment received hereunder shall first be applied to any accrued interest, and the balance of each such payment, if any, shall then be applied to principal. Debtor shall be entitled to prepay principal without penalty.


 


All amounts payable under and by virtue of this Note shall be payable, without offset, at 2025 4th St., Suite 102A, Santa Monica, CA 90405 or at such other place as the Creditor hereof may so designate in writing from time to time, in lawful money of the United States which shall be legal tender in the payment of all debts and dues, public and private, at the time of payment.


 




	 	
DEBTOR: Next Generation Energy Corp.

	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	
By: 

	/s/ Darryl Reed	 
	 	 	Darryl Reed, CEO
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NELSON SOSA-GUARDADO, AKA Jose 

Oscar Hernandez-Salomon, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-72403 

Agency No. A200-964-186 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 12, 2022**

Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Nelson Sosa-Guardado, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se 

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his 

appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum

and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

JUL 20 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-72403 

dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Sosa-Guardado does not raise, and therefore waives, 

any challenge to the dispositive grounds relied on by the agency in denying his 

claims for asylum and withholding of removal. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 

F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in an 

opening brief are waived).

We do not reach Sosa-Guardado’s contentions concerning the cognizability 

of his proposed particular social group because the agency did not deny relief on 

this ground. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (the 

court’s review is limited to the actual grounds relied upon by the BIA).

To the extent Sosa-Guardado contends the agency violated his right to due 

process, we reject his contentions as unsupported by the record. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4284

To prohibit certain abortions.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 28, 1996

Mr. HOYER (for himself, Mr. EDWARDS, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mrs. THURMAN,

Mr. SAWYER, Mr. WYNN, Mr. BENTSEN, Ms. MCCARTHY, Mr. DOOLEY

of California, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. DICKS, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. FROST, Mr.

SCOTT, Mr. MORAN, and Mr. RICHARDSON) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To prohibit certain abortions.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Late Term Abortion

5 Restriction Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN ABORTIONS.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—It shall be unlawful, in or affect8 ing interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly to perform

9 an abortion after the fetus has become viable.
2

•HR 4284 IH

1 (b) EXCEPTION.—This section does not prohibit any

2 abortion performed if, in the medical judgment of the at3 tending physician, the abortion is necessary to preserve

4 the life of the woman or to avert serious adverse health

5 consequences to the woman.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

65 Cadillac Square JPMC 2006-CIBC14

REO, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company

Plaintiff,

vs.

DTWR, LLC, et al.

Defendants

Case No: 2:09-cv-13299-RHC-VMM

Hon.: Robert H. Cleland

MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND

STONE, PLC

Dennis G. Bonucchi (P26954)

Eric C. Bartley (P69792)

840 West Long Lake Road, Suite 200

Troy, Michigan 48098

Attorneys for Plaintiff

(248) 879-2000

SCHAFER AND WEINER, PLLC

Joseph K. Grekin (P52165)

Michael E. Baum (P29446)

40950 Woodward Ave., Suite 100

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304

Attorneys for Defendants

(248) 540-3340

ORDER REGARDING STATUS CONFERENCE

On July 12, 2010, counsel for the parties to this action and counsel for the Courtappointed Financial Monitor appeared before the Court telephonically for a status conference

regarding this matter. Pursuant to the agreement of the parties and Financial Monitor by their

respective counsel,

IT IS ORDERED THAT the parties shall on or before July 23, 2010 select a mediator to

conduct a non-binding mediation of the outstanding issues in this matter. If the parties, acting in

good faith, cannot select a mutually satisfactory mediator by such date, the parties shall advise

the Court, and the Court will assist with the selection. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT on or before August 9, 2010, the parties shall have

arranged with the selected mediator a briefing schedule and a date for the mediation hearing that

is satisfactory to the parties and the selected mediator. The Court will be available to assist, as

necessary, with the mediation process. COUNSEL ARE DIRECTED TO NOTIFY THE
COURT OF THE MEDIATOR AND THE DATE AND TIME OF THE SCHEDULED

MEDITATION. 

IT IS SO ORDERED

 s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: July 20, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on this

date, July 20, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

The undersigned stipulate to the entry of this Order:

MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE, P.L.C.

By: /s/ Eric C. Bartley

Dennis G. Bonucchi (P26954) 

Eric C. Bartley (P69792)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, P.L.C.

840 West Long Lake Road, Suite 200

Troy, MI 48098-6358

bartley@millercanfield.com
By: /s/ Joseph K. Grekin

Joseph K. Grekin (P52165)

Attorney for Defendants

Schafer and Weiner, PLLC

40950 Woodward Ave., Ste. 100

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304

jgrekin@schaferandweiner.com

18,161,770.2\131318-00058

07/13/10 1:07 PM
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors 

Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference inthe registration statements No. 33-90926 and 333-75706 on Form S-8 and No. 333-38338 on Form S-3 of Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. of our report dated March 27, 2009, with respect to the balance sheets of Great Lakes Aviation,Ltd. as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the related statements of income, stockholders’ equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2008, which report appears in theDecember 31, 2008 annual report on Form 10-K of Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. 

Our report with respect to the financial statements refers to theadoption by Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. of Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Interpretation No. 48, *Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes—an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109*, effective January 1,2007. 

 

Denver, Colorado 

March 27, 2009
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6385** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. ERIC LAVELL SKIPWITH , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. J. Frederick Motz , Senior District Judge. ( 1:14

- cr - 00092

- JFM

- 2 ; 1:15

- cv - 03267

- JFM )

Submitted : October 18, 2016 Decided: October 20, 2016

Before WILKINSON , KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Eric Lavell Skipwith , Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein , United States Attorney, Christopher John Romano , Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding preced ent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Eric Lavell Skipwith seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisf ies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (20 03). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S
. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Skipwith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argume nt would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
WILLIAM P. RAGUSA,

Appellant,

v.

REEMPLOYMENT 

ASSISTANCE APPEALS 

COMMISSION and ADP 

TOTALSOURCE CO XXI,

Appellees.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-1260

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 18, 2016.

An appeal from an order from the Reemployment Assistance Appeals 

Commission.

Frank E. Brown, Chairman.

William P. Ragusa, pro se, Appellant.

Cristina Angelica Velez, Tallahassee, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, ROWE, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief J udge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-3635

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Allende Delgado-Ruiz, also known as * Northern District of Iowa. Juan Ruiz, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: March 7, 2007 Filed: March 15, 2007

___________ Before RILEY, HANSEN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Allende Delgado-Ruiz (Ruiz) appeal s the sentence the district court 1 imposed upon his guilty plea to illegally reentering the United States after having been removed subsequent to a felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). The court sentenced Ruiz to 41 m onths’ imprisonment and 3 years’ supervised release. Ruiz’s counsel has moved to w ithdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.-2- California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that enhancing Ruiz’s sentence based on prior convictions (for which he has al ready been punished) resulted in double punishment. We reject this argument. See United States v. Thomas , 930 F.2d 12, 14 (8th Cir. 1991) (use of prior crimes to enhance sentence does not violate Double Jeopardy Clause). Further, having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________
Exhibit 24POWER OF ATTORNEYWe, the undersigned directors of the Registrant, hereby severally constitute and appoint RickGreen our true and lawful attorney and agent, to do any and all things in our names in thecapacities indicated below which said person may deem necessary or advisable to enable theRegistrant to comply with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and any rules,regulations and requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, in connection with theannual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, including specifically, but notlimited to, power and authority to sign for us in our names in the capacities indicated below theannual report and any amendments thereto; and we hereby approve, ratify, and confirm all that saidperson shall do or cause to be done by virtue thereof.     /s/ Jim Berry Jim Berry, Director   January 25, 2007      /s/ Tom D. Berry Tom D. Berry, Director   January 25, 2007      /s/ Joe Berry Cannon Joe Berry Cannon, Director   January 25, 2007      /s/ John Cohlmia John Cohlmia, Director   January 25, 2007      /s/ David S. Crockett Jr. David S. Crockett Jr., Director   January 25, 2007      /s/ J. Berry Harrison J. Berry Harrison, Director   January 25, 2007      /s/ James M. Johnson James M. Johnson, Director   January 25, 2007      /s/ David P. Lambert David P. Lambert, Director   January 25, 2007      /s/ Linford R. Pitts Linford R. Pitts, Director   January 25, 2007      /s/ Robert B. Rodgers Robert B. Rodgers, Director   January 25, 2007      /s/ Russell W. Teubner Russell W. Teubner, Director   January 25, 2007
#### Marilyn MANNE f/k/a Marilyn Newmark, Movant/Appellant, v. Markey NEWMARK, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 68744.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

Sept. 10, 1996.

Tahan & Sindel, N. Kimasa Sindel, Clayton, for Movant/Appellant.

David M. Korum, Catherine M. Vale, Clayton, for Respondent/Respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Wife filed a motion to modify seeking an increase in maintenance. At the conclusion of wife’s evidence, husband moved to dismiss. He alleged wife had not shown changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the terms unreasonable, as required by § 452.370.1, RSMo 1994.

The trial court granted the motion. It entered judgment, ordering “each party to pay his/her attorneys’ fees incurred and the costs of his/her discovery and experts.” Wife appeals; we affirm. Husband’s Rule 84.19 motion seeking damages for frivolous appeal is denied.

*897No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information  extracted from
DWFCM International Access Fund L.P. and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      46,211,886
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  138,824<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              45,904,521<F2>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                45,904,521<F3>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,332,052<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,172,636
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,159,416
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,159,416
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,159,416
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Receivables include interest receivable of $138,824.
<F2>In addition to cash and receivables, total assets include net
unrealized loss on open contracts of $446,189.
<F3>Liabilities include redemptions payable of $239,917, accrued
management fees of $114,567, accrued administrative expenses
of $77,869, and incentive fees payable of $0.
<F4>Total revenue includes realized trading revenue of $10,745,170,
net change in unrealized of $(6,135,777) and interest income of
$1,722,659.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
#### Daniel W. Richard v. William W. Flannagan.

Motion granted, with ten dollars costs.