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 Annual Report of ICO Global Communications (Holdings) Limited (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), J. Timothy Bryan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company (principal executive officer)
and Michael P. Corkery, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer (principal financial and accounting officer), each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of their knowledge:



|/s/J. TIMOTHY BRYAN                                   |  | /s/MICHAEL P. CORKERY                                                                         
|----------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|J. Timothy Bryan                                      |  | Michael P. Corkery                                                                            
|Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer) |  | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial and accounting officer)
|March 27, 2008                                        |  | March 27, 2008                                                                                

A
signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63
of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), has been provided to ICO Global Communications (Holdings) Limited and will be retained by ICO Global Communications
(Holdings) Limited and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of ICO Global Communications (Holdings) Limited under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in
such filing.

---



QuickLinks
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 653 

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently prohibit 

the conduct of offshore drilling on the outer Continental Shelf off the 

coast of California, Oregon, and Washington. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2021 

Mr. HUFFMAN (for himself, Ms. BARRAGA ́N, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Ms. 

BONAMICI, Ms. BROWNLEY, Mr. CARBAJAL, Mr. CA ́RDENAS, Mr. DEFAZIO, Ms. DELBENE, Mr. DESAULNIER, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. GARAMENDI, 

Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. JAYAPAL, Mr. KHANNA, Mr. KILMER, Mr. LARSEN

of Washington, Mr. LEVIN of California, Mr. LOWENTHAL, Ms. MATSUI, 

Mr. MCNERNEY, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Ms. NORTON, Mr. PANETTA, Ms. 

ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. SCHRADER, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. 

SMITH of Washington, Ms. SPEIER, and Mr. TAKANO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently prohibit the conduct of offshore drilling on the 

outer Continental Shelf off the coast of California, Oregon, and Washington. 

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 ‘‘West Coast Ocean Pro5 tection Act of 2021’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 653 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING ON THE 

2 OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OFF THE COAST 

3 OF CALIFORNIA, OREGON, AND WASHINGTON. 

4 Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

5 (43 U.S.C. 1337) is amended by adding at the end the 

6 following: 

7 ‘‘(q) PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING IN

8 CERTAIN AREAS OF THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF.— 

9 Notwithstanding any other provision of this section or any 

10 other law, the Secretary of the Interior shall not issue a 

11 lease for the exploration, development, or production of 

12 oil or natural gas in any area of the outer Continental 

13 Shelf off the coast of the State of California, Oregon, or 

14 Washington.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 3(a)



Peoples Energy Corporation

Consider Recommendation of the
Compensation-Nominating CommitteeConcerning Amendment to the By-Laws



Mr. Livingston, Chairman of the Compensation-Nominating Committee, stated that the Compensation-Nominating Committee recommends to this Board that the By-Laws of the Company be amended to provide for a reduction in the number of members constituting
the Board of Directors effective as of the close of business on February 22, 2001.

The directors then discussed the need for and the benefits which would be derived from reducing the number of directors to nine members.

After discussion, on motion duly made and seconded, the following resolution was unanimously adopted:

RESOLVED, That, effective as of the close of business on February 22, 2001, Section 3.1 of Article III of the By-Laws of the Company be, and it hereby is, amended by reducing the number of members constituting the Board of Directors from ten to nine.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6389 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6389

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an exemption from 
 gross income for mandatory restitution or civil damages as recompense 
                      for trafficking in persons.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 12, 2022

Mr. Schneider (for himself, Mr. Arrington, Ms. Sewell, and Mr. Smith of 
  Missouri) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an exemption from 
 gross income for mandatory restitution or civil damages as recompense 
                      for trafficking in persons.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Human Trafficking Survivor Tax 
Relief Act''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION RESTITUTION AND CIVIL 
              DAMAGES AWARDED UNDER SECTIONS 1593 AND 1595 OF TITLE 18, 
              UNITED STATES CODE.

    (a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting before section 
140 the following new section:

``SEC. 139J. CERTAIN AMOUNT RECEIVED AS RESTITUTION OR CIVIL DAMAGES AS 
              RECOMPENSE FOR TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS.

    ``Gross income shall not include any civil damages, restitution, or 
other monetary award (including compensatory or statutory damages and 
restitution imposed in a criminal matter) awarded--
            ``(1) pursuant to an order of restitution under section 
        1593 of title 18, United States Code, or
            ``(2) in an action under section 1595 of title 18, United 
        States Code.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for part III of 
subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
amended by inserting before the item relating to section 140 the 
following new item:

``Sec. 139J. Certain amount received as restitution or civil damages as 
                            recompense for trafficking in persons.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT
      32**





**Certification
      pursuant to**


**18
      U.S.C. Section 1350,**


**as
      adopted pursuant to**


**Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**







Anthony
      P. Costa, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and Arthur W. Budich, Executive
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of ES Bancshares, Inc. (the
“Company”), each certify in his capacity as an officer of the
      Company that he has reviewed the Annual Report of the Company on Form
      10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 and that to the best of 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 operations of the
                Company.






Date:   
      March 29,
      2007                                                             By: /s/
      Anthony P. Costa


Anthony
      P. Costa, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer








Date:   
      March 29,
      2007                                                             By:  /s/
      Arthur W. Budich


Arthur
      W.
      Budich, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer












The
      purpose of this statement is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63, Section
      1350 of the United States Code, as amended by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002.
Exhibit 32.1

Statement of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of
Pacific Enterprises (the "Company") certifies that:

(i)	the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2005 (the "Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.



May 4, 2005
                                           /S/ STEPHEN L. BAUM
                                         ______________________
                                           Stephen L. Baum
                                           Chief Executive Officer
#### Pat HAYES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-5059.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 27, 2001.

Before MICHEL, CLEVENGER, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

The United States moves to dismiss Pat Hayes’ appeal as untimely. Hayes opposes and moves to “dismiss” the United States’ motion. The United States replies and opposes Hayes’ motion. Hayes replies.

On December 1, 2000, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed Hayes’ complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Judgment was entered on December 1, 2000. Hayes filed a notice of appeal on February 6, 2001, or 67 days after the entry of judgment.

An appeal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims must be filed within 60 days after the entry of judgment. *See*Fed. R.App. P. (4)(a)(l) and 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b). This statutory requirement may not be waived. *See Christianson v. Colt Operating Indus. Corp.,*486 U.S. 800, 818, 108 S.Ct. 2166, 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988) (court may not extend its jurisdiction where none exists); *Sofarelli Associates, Inc. v. United States,*716 F.2d 1395 (Fed.Cir.1983) (appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction if notice of appeal is untimely).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The United States’ motion to dismiss is granted.

(2) Hayes’ motion is denied.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
#### Raheem Jabbar HUNT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David ROBINSON, Warden, Nottoway Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-7308.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 7, 2002.

Decided Nov. 15, 2002.

Kenneth Clay Chrisman, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert H. Anderson, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Raheem Jabbar Hunt seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on *163his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state court unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). As to claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’ ” *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.2001) (quoting *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Hunt has not satisfied either standard. *See Hunt v. Robinson,*No. CA-01-802-3 (E.D.Va. Aug. 6, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
177 La. 673

#### FREDIEU v. FEDERAL LAND BANK OF NEW ORLEANS.

No. 31679.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 29, 1933.

Rehearing Denied July 7,1933.

E. S. Prudhomme, of Natchitoches, for appellant.

Kenneth C. Barranger. and Harold Moses, both of New Orleans, for appellee.

ST. PAUL, Justice.

Some time in the summer of 1931, the exact date not appearing in the transcript, the defendant took out executory proceedings against the property of plaintiff upon a past due and unpaid mortgage note.

Before the sale plaintiff sued for an injunction to stop the proceedings, on the ground that defendant ¡had granted him an extension of time until the 1st of January, 1932. The trial judge granted a temporary restraining order and a rule to show cause why the injunction should not issue.

On the trial of the rule the judge refused the injunction and dissolved the restraining order, but granted plaintiff a suspensive appeal which is now before us.

The only evidence adduced by plaintiff is that of himself and son. He himself testified that his only knowledge of any extension is derived from his son. The son testifies positively that no extension was ever granted. Thus:

“Question: As a matter of fact, was your father ever granted an extension?

“Answer: No Sir. * 3⁄8 *

“Question: In other words, you had ho extension did you?

.“Answer: No, I didn’t.”

And the officers and agents of the defendant testify positively that no extension was ever given.

The trial judge did not believe the alleged extension had been granted, and we think his judgment is correct.

Decree.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
175 La. 414

#### FITZGERALD v. SILVA.

No. 31781.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 20, 1932.

Daly & Hamlin, of New Orleans, for appellant.

C. E. Torjusen and John Alonzo Woodville, both of New Orleans, for appellee.

ST. PAUL, J.

Plaintiff seeks a separation from her husband on the ground that he has been guilty of *360suela cruelty and outrageous treatment towards her as to render their living together insupportable.

Besides lugging into her petition and evidence a vast lot of irrelevant, and more or less trivial, domestic differences, which, if they were grounds for a judicial separation of husband and wife, would *make*almost any marriage dissolvable at the complaint of either party at almost any time (a goal towaf'ds which, whether desirable or undesirable, we are fast moving), she alleges and shows that her husband repeatedly ordered her from his house, and invited her to get out and stay out; which invitation she was perforce obliged to accept and go to her mother’s home; only to have him come for her and induce her to return on promises of better treatment, not Isept. And on at least one occasion he laid rough hands upon her; not to her maiming or serious injury, but decidedly less, gently than a man should ever lay hands upon a woman, especially upon his wife, and the mother of his children.

This was such outrageous conduct towards her as no wife should be required to tolerate; and we think the trial judge properly overruled defendant’s exception of no cause of action and gave plaintiff judgment as prayed for.

Decree.

For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
#### DYKES v. DYKES et al.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

March 19, 1954.

John M. Murrell, Miami, for .appellant.

Katzentine, Heckerling. &' White, Lane,' Muir, Wakefield, Frazier & Lane and E. Clyde Vining, Miami, for appellees.

TERRELL, Justice.

Appellant as complainant filed complaint in the Circuit Court in which he prayed that a certain agreement marked Exhibit “A” attached to the complaint be cancelled and annulled,.-that an -accounting be had and for such other and -further relief in the premises as the court may deem proper. The defendants, appellees, filed three separate motions-fo dismiss on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action or that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Counsel for all parties signed a stipulation as provided by 31 F.S.A. Equity Rule 7(d) that the cause set for hearing before the chancellor at 10 o’clock A. M. August 14, 1953, be postponed to a future date to be agreed on by counsel for the respective parties.’ Two months after filing said stipulation, the chancellor dismissed the complaint with prejudice, without notice of hearing, without argument,’ and in violation of the stipulation.

As reason for dismissing the Complaint, the chancellor stated that it “appears that the bill seeks rescission of an agreement in which the plaintiff’s testate sought to-obtain an unfair advantage in a divorce case then pending against her husband, by making it appear that the assets described in said agreement were' not owned by' her, A court of equity will not lend its aid in *172such circumstances. The bill cannot be amended.” . We are confronted with an appeal from this order. .

Appellant was entitled to notice and opportunity to be. heard before dismissing the complaint. Scarlett v. Frederick, 147 Fla. 407, 3 So.2d 165.

The judgment.is reversed on authority of the last-cited case;

Reversed.

ROBERTS, C. J., and SEBRING and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
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 of China Tel Group, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, George Alvarez, CEO of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




The 10-K
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




The
information contained in this 10-K Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.


Date:  April 15, 2010
                  By: /s/ Carlos TrujilloCarlos
      Trujillo, Chief Accounting Officer & Chief Financial
      Officer


[A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been
provided to the company and will be retained by the company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.]
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 9, 2015

No. 04-14-00644-CR

Elton Anthony BRANCH,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR7555

Honorable Ray Olivarri, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The appellant’s brief in the above styled cause was due to be filed on January 28, 2015. 

On February 6, 2015, Appellant Elton Anthony Branch filed his brief and a motion for extension 

of time. The motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief is deemed filed as of February 6, 2015.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 9th day of February, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court