alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION PURUANT TO SECTION 302 OF


THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002


The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with this report on Form 10-Q for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Exchange Act and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.





Steven J. Johnston, the chief executive officer, and Michael J. Sewell, the chief financial officer, of Cincinnati Financial Corporation each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:


|   |                                                                                                   
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | the report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

|   |                                                                                                                                                                          
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cincinnati Financial Corporation.




Date: April 26, 2016


/S/ Steven J. JohnstonSteven J. Johnston, FCAS, MAAA, CFA, CERAPresident and Chief Executive Officer/S/ Michael J. SewellMichael J. Sewell, CPAChief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President and Treasurer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 04-cr-224-01-PB

Henry R. Cabrera

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the December 6, 2005

trial in the above case A previously scheduled plea hearing was

cancelled due to the absence of the interpreter and, accordingly,

defendant now requests a continuance of the trial date so that a

change of plea hearing can be rescheduled in January. The

government does not object to a continuance of the trial date.

For the above reasons, the court will continue the trial

from December 6, 2005 to February 7, 2006. In agreeing to

continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. §

3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the ends of

justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the best

interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:04-cr-00224-PB Document 22 Filed 11/18/05 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

November 18, 2005

cc: Alfred Rubega, Esq.

Jeffrey Levin, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:04-cr-00224-PB Document 22 Filed 11/18/05 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   5-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,648,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,758,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,180,000
<PP&E>                                     106,554,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (7,846,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             103,294,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,272,000
<BONDS>                                     36,650,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   108,053,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (46,681,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               103,294,000
<SALES>                                      8,832,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,019,000
<CGS>                                        3,719,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,319,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                65,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,267,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,368,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,368,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.25
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 3.2


                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                       OF

               AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                       OF

                             deCODE genetics, Inc.

      Pursuant to Section 242 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, the
undersigned corporation (the "Corporation") executes this Certificate of
Amendment of its Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation.

      1.    Section 4.1 of the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation
is amended to read in its entirety as follows:

            "4.1 Authorized Shares. This Corporation is authorized to issue two
      classes of stock to be designated, respectively, "Common Stock" and
      "Preferred Stock." The total number of shares which the Corporation is
      authorized to issue is One Hundred and Six Million, Seven Hundred and
      Sixteen Thousand, Six Hundred and Sixty-Six (106,716,666), One Hundred
      Million (100,000,000) shares of which will be Common Stock (the "Common
      Stock") and Six Million, Seven Hundred and Sixteen Thousand, Six Hundred
      and Sixty-Six (6,716,666) shares of which will be Preferred Stock (the
      "Preferred Stock"). The Preferred Stock will have a par value of one-tenth
      of one cent ($0.001) per share, and the Common Stock will have a par value
      of one-tenth of one cent ($0.001) for share."

      2.    The foregoing amendment has been duly adopted in accordance with the
provisions Section 242(b) of the Delaware General Corporation Law.


      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of
Amendment of its Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation to be duly
executed in its corporate name on this 30th day of August, 2002.

                                                  deCODE genetics, Inc.

                                                  By: /s/ Kari Stefansson
                                                      --------------------------
                                                      Kari Stefansson, President
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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned
officers of Rand Capital Corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2017 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the
Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:
August 7, 2017



/s/ Allen F. GrumAllen F. Grum, President(Chief Executive Officer )


Dated: August 7, 2017



/s/ Daniel P. PenberthyDaniel P. Penberthy, Treasurer(Chief Financial Officer )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cv-242-SM

Pittsburg, NH, 1 Maple Mountain Rd., et al.

O R D E R

 Effective October 1, 2005, Electronic Filing became mandatory in all cases in this

district. After being admitted to appear pro hac vice on May 22, 2006, Attorney Anthony R.

DiFruscia was notified that his admission was contingent on registering for ECF within 10 days. 

On June 16, 2006, the clerk’s office made a courtesy telephone call to Attorney DiFruscia’s

office to inform him that his ECF registration was past due and to request he immediately

register for ECF. As of this date, Attorney DiFruscia has not registered for ECF. 

Attorney DiFruscia shall register for ECF on or before July 21, 2006. If Attorney

DiFruscia fails to register within this time frame, the court will immediately revoke his pro hac

admission status and will remove him as counsel of record in the case without further order of

the court.

SO ORDERED.

Date: July 7, 2006 ______________________________________

 Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 1:05-cv-00242-SM Document 43 Filed 07/07/06 Page 1 of 1
Addendum to Employment Agreement between Getty Images, Inc. and Nick Evans-Lombe



 Exhibit 10.33 
  
 February 6, 2002 
  

Addendum to Employment Contract between Nick Evans-Lombe & Getty Images dated February 6, 2002. 
  
 It is agreed that in addition to the contract provisions, Nick shall receive the following pre-requisites, while employed by Getty Images:

  

	 	•	 	Accomodation Allowance not to exceed $60,000 per annum. 

  

	 	•	 	Airline ticket Allowance not to exceed $4,700 per annum. 

  

	 	•	 	Reimbursement for 2 leased automobiles through December 31, 2002, then reimbursement for 1 leased automobile through June 1, 2004. 

  

	 	•	 	UK Pension Allowance of $16,450 per annum. 

  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Addendum effective as of the day and year first written above. 
  

			
	GETTY IMAGES, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ JEFF BEYLE


	Name:	 	Jeff Beyle
	Title:	 	SVP, General Counsel
	
	EMPLOYEE
		
	By:	 	 /s/ NICK EVANS-LOMBE


	 	 	Nick Evans-Lombe
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1700

PAUL KULP HOFFMAN, Petitioner, versus INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, J. R. STARKEY; HARRY BENDER; BETH WARD; SHIRLEY M. KRIEZEL, Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Internal Revenue Service. (No. 0090-0) Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 21, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul Kulp Hoffman, Petitioner Pro Se. Margaret Milner Richardson, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Greensboro, North Carolina; Beth Ward, Asheville, North Carolina; Shirley M. Kriezel, Asheville, North Carolina, for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).1 See 5 U.S.C. § 703 (1994); International Bhd. of Teamsters v. Pena , 17 F.3d 1478 (D.C. Cir. 1994). 2 See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994). 3 See 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); FED . R. CIV . P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). 4 See Rettinger v. FTC , 392 F.2d 454, 457 (2d Cir. 1968); United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. FPC , 181 F.2d 796, 799 (D.C. Cir. 1950). 2 PER CURIAM: Paul Hoffman, who disputes whether federal income tax laws apply to him, insisted on filing a civil complaint in this court against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) seeking injunctiverelief and monetary damages. Hoffman asserts that the IRS is maliciously persecuting him in its attempt to collect taxes. Additionally, Hoffman claims that the IRS failed to comply with the Freedom of Information Act. We dismiss this complaint for a lack of jurisdiction.We find no merit to Hoffman's contention that this court automatically has jurisdiction to review actions by a federal agency. Unless statute provides otherwise, persons seeking review of agency action must go first to the federal district court rather than the court of appeals. 1 This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 2 and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 3 The agency action of which Hoffman complains is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. However, Hoffman is not without a remedy. Nothing prevents him from seeking relief in the district court. 4 Upon Hoffman's com-3 plaint that the IRS violated his rights in its collection efforts, the district court can develop a record and reach a decision that will give due consideration to Hoffman's claims. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint without prejudice to Hoffman's right to seek relief in another forum. Additionally, we deny Hoffman's request for subpoena duces tecum. We dispense withoral 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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Sean Ahern 

v. Case No. 04-cv-474-SM

United States

O R D E R

The court determined that the motion was properly construed as a second or successive 

petition over which the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, appellate preclearance not having 

been first obtained, and no other exception being applicable . 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2). That 

determination is not reasonably debatable, so the court necessarily declines to issue a certificate of 

appealabilty. 

SO ORDERED.

February 3, 2012 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

United States District Judge

cc: Sean Ahern, pro se

Case 1:04-cv-00474-SM Document 36 Filed 02/03/12 Page 1 of 1
V

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1286

For the relief of Kuan-Fan Hsieh.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 28, 2001

Mr. THOMPSON of California introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Kuan-Fan Hsieh.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR KUAN-FAN

4 HSIEH.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a)

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality

7 Act, Kuan-Fan Hsieh shall be eligible for issuance of an

8 immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an

9 alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon fil10 ing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under

11 section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to

12 lawful permanent resident.
2

•HR 1286 IH

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Kuan-Fan Hsieh

2 enters the United States before the filing deadline speci3 fied in subsection (c), she shall be considered to have en4 tered and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible,

5 be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of

6 the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the

7 enactment of this Act.

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees

12 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

13 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—

14 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res15 idence to Kuan-Fan Hsieh, the Secretary of State shall

16 instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the cur17 rent or next following fiscal year, the total number of im18 migrant visas that are made available to natives of the

19 country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) of the

20 Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the

21 total number of immigrant visas that are made available

22 to natives of the country of the alien’s birth under section

23 202(e) of such Act.

24 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

25 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural
3

•HR 1286 IH

1 parents, brothers, and sisters of Kuan-Fan Hsieh shall

2 not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any right,

3 privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality

4 Act.

Æ
111 South 18th Plaza, Suite 1152, Omaha, NE 68102-1322

Omaha: (402) 661-7350 Fax: (402) 661-7387 Toll Free: (866) 220-4381

Lincoln: (402) 437-1900 Fax: (402) 437-1911 Toll Free: (866) 220-4379

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

Denise M. Lucks OFFICE OF THE CLERK Gabriela Acosta

Clerk of Court www.ned.uscourts.gov Chief Deputy Clerk

TO: The Honorable Brian C. Buescher

FROM: Clerk, United States District Court

DATE: November 20, 2024

SUBJECT: 8:23cr118 USA v. Ricardo N. Muro

You are receiving this memorandum because a notice of appeal was filed in this 

criminal case and the clerk’s office cannot process the appeal to the Eighth Circuit until 

either the appellate filing fee is paid or the question of the defendant’s authorization to 

proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is resolved.1

In order to assist the clerk’s office in its processing of this appeal, please mark the 

appropriate box:

☒ No separate order will be entered because the defendant is entitled to proceed on 

appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization pursuant to Rule 24(a)(3) of the 

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

☐ A separate order or further proceedings will be required to address the defendant’s 

authorization to proceed in forma pauperis. The clerk’s office ☐ is ☐ is not directed to 

set a 30-day case management deadline checking on the status of the processing of 

this appeal.

1 The purpose of this memorandum is to assist in the timely processing of this appeal by notifying 

you that one or more issues may require your attention before the clerk’s office can process the appeal. 

Please feel free to disregard this memorandum if the issue or issues raised will be addressed by a 

separate order.

8:23-cr-00118-BCB-MDN Doc # 91 Filed: 11/20/24 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 234
Case 1:04-mj-00108-JM Document 5 Filed 01/28/05 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

MARVEL JONES,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

MICHAEL GETTMANN and 

ROBERT ROSE, in their individual 

capacities,

Defendants.

8:23-CV-182

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff's motion to appoint 

counsel (filing 56). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court "may request 

an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel." Crozier for A.C. 

v. Westside Cmty. Sch. Dist., 973 F.3d 882, 889 (8th Cir. 2020). The Court must 

consider the factual and legal complexity of the issues, the existence of 

conflicting testimony, and the ability of the plaintiff to investigate the facts 

and present his claims. Patterson v. Kelley, 902 F.3d 845, 850 (8th Cir. 2018). 

The Court finds that the criteria for appointment of counsel are satisfied

in this case. The plaintiff is unable to afford counsel. See filing 54; filing 55.

The issues are factually and legally complex, and given the plaintiff's 

institutionalization, it may be difficult for all parties to complete discovery 

without the assistance of plaintiff's counsel.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (filing 56) 

is granted.

2. The plaintiff's motion to reconsider (filing 57), motion for 

subpoena (filing 58), and objection (filing 59) are denied 

without prejudice to reassertion through appointed counsel, 

after counsel has an opportunity to review the case and 

confer with his client.

8:23-cv-00182-JMG-JMD Doc # 61 Filed: 07/11/24 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 468
- 2 -

3. Pursuant to NECivR 1.7, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), and the 

inherent authority of the Court, Nathan J. Stratton and the 

law firm of Stratton, Delay, Doele, Carlson, Buettner & 

Stover, P.C., L.L.O. are appointed to represent the plaintiff.

4. The Clerk of the Court shall provide a copy of this order and 

a copy of filing 52 to the above-named counsel:

Nathan J. Stratton

200 West Benjamin Avenue

Norfolk, NE 68702-0888

nstratton@norfolknelaw.com

5. Counsel shall promptly enter an appearance accepting the 

Court's appointment.

6. Expenses and attorney fees shall be paid from the Federal 

Practice Fund under the restrictions set out in NECivR 1.7

and the Amended Plan for the Administration of the Federal 

Practice Fund and the Federal Practice Committee (as 

adopted December 29, 2021). Counsel is particularly 

directed to Section II(A)(1)(a), Section VI(A)(1), and 

Attachment A of the Plan, which explain what fees and 

expenses are authorized and how to seek reimbursement.

7. On or before July 25, 2024, counsel for the parties shall 

contact the Magistrate Judge's chambers to set a scheduling

conference to discuss case progression. 

Dated this 11th day of July, 2024.

BY THE COURT:

John M. Gerrard

Senior United States District Judge

8:23-cv-00182-JMG-JMD Doc # 61 Filed: 07/11/24 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 469
EXHIBIT 32





AMASYS CORPORATION





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,


UNITED STATES CODE)








Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Amasys Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge that:





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





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








April 22, 2011/s/ C.W. Gilluly, Ed.D.President, Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1195 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1195

 To expand the class of beneficiaries who may apply for adjustment of 
 status under section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act by 
     extending the deadline for classification petition and labor 
                         certification filings.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 22, 2001

  Mr. Rangel introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To expand the class of beneficiaries who may apply for adjustment of 
 status under section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act by 
     extending the deadline for classification petition and labor 
                         certification filings.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE.

    (a) In General.--Section 245(i)(1)(B)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255(i)(1)(B)(i)) is amended by striking 
``April 30, 2001;'' and inserting ``April 30, 2002;''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect as if included in the enactment of the Legal Immigration 
Family Equity Act (as enacted into law by Public Law 106-553).
                                 <all>
```