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


           Certification Required by Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b)
                           and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
     (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------


I, Aaron Hollander, as Chief Executive Officer of First Aviation Services Inc.
(the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), that to my
knowledge:

(1)      the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
         period ended April 30, 2007 (the "Report"), filed with the U.S.
         Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the
         requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
         of 1934, as amended; and

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


Dated: June 19, 2007


                                           /s/ Aaron Hollander
                                          --------------------
                                          Name:  Aaron Hollander
                                          Title: Chief Executive Officer


                                       22
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7264

KENNETH FRANKLIN HUDDLESTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LEON DIXON,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-96-699-AM)

Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 23, 1997

Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Franklin Huddleston, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a Virginia inmate, appeals from the district court's

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under

28 U.S.C. § 1915 (1994), amended by Prison Litigation Reform Act,

Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Appellant, at most, alleges a disagreement with the prison

doctors as to the course of medical treatment that he received.

Such allegations are not cognizable under § 1983. See Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 849 (4th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, we affirm.

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.

AFFIRMED
---

|Coded Tables | 
|------------ | 



|These data are released whenever there are code changes.                                                                                                                                                                                                        
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Complete file (377 KB PDF)Cover page and table of contents (30 KB PDF)
Debt growth, borrowing and debt outstanding tables (12 KB PDF)
Flows tables (139 KB PDF)
Level tables (116 KB PDF)
Balance sheet tables (18 KB PDF)
Supplementary tables (28 KB PDF)

|These files are available in Acrobat (PDF 3) format only.Obtaining the free Acrobat Reader from the Adobe Web Site
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Release dates | 
Announcements | 
Coded tables | Historical dataCurrent release | 
Screen reader | 
PDF (632 KB) | 
Data Download Program (DDP)

Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: June 8, 2006
#### Ruth KATZ and Hyman S. Katz, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ITALA PLOTTE RIUNITE COSULICH LLOYD SABAUDO, NAVIGAZIONE GENERALE, Also Known as Italian Line, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 119.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 3, 1938.

Loomis, Williams & Donahue, of New York City (Homer L. Loomis, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Irving Kaufman and Single & Tyler, all of New York City (Douglas D. Crystal and Wilbur H. Hecht, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellees.

Before ' MANTON, L. HAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges'.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment affirmed.
1 

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-24-00119-CR

__________________

IN RE SAMAD SEFIANE

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding

Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 17-27943

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Samad Sefiane argues that he received 

an illegal sentence because the evidence from the trial of his criminal case, which 

occurred in 2018, isn’t sufficient to support the jury’s finding that he inflicted a 

serious bodily injury on the victim of the assault.

1 For relief, Sefiane asks that this 

1

Relator was convicted of aggravated family violence assault in the Criminal 

District Court of Jefferson County, Texas, in Trial Court Cause Number 17-27943. 

See Sefiane v. State, No. 09-18-00216-CR, 2019 WL 2439490 (Tex. App.—

Beaumont June 12, 2019, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Even 

though Sefiane didn’t certify that he served a copy of his petition for mandamus on 

the Respondent and the Real Party in Interest, we suspend that requirement under 

the circumstances to expedite resolving the complaints that he has raised in his 
2

Court order the trial court “to hold a hearing on his application to correct the penal 

statute and sentence.” 

In a criminal case, the relator has the burden to establish that he lacks an 

adequate remedy at law and that the act which he is seeking the Court of Appeals to 

compel is ministerial rather than discretionary in nature.

2 Before filing this original 

proceeding, Sefiane filed an appeal from the conviction he incurred in Trial Court 

Cause Number 17-27943 for aggravated family violence assault.

3 After we affirmed 

his conviction, the judgment of conviction became final and the Court issued its 

mandate. 

After a mandate issues, the adequate remedy at law available to a defendant 

to complain of an alleged error in the judgment requires the judgment’s correction 

through the filing of a writ of habeas corpus.

4 What’s more, Article 11.07 of the 

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides the exclusive means by which a 

defendant convicted of a felony may challenge his conviction unless the punishment 

that was assessed in the judgment included the death penalty.

5

petition. See Tex. R. App. P. 2 (Suspension of Rules); id. 9.5(a) (Service of All 

Documents Required).

2

See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1991) (orig. proceeding). 3

See Sefiane, 2019 WL 2439490, at *1; see also Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 

22.02(b)(2). 4

See Ater, 802 S.W.2d at 243.

5

See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art.11.07, §§ 3, 5.
3

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.6

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on April 30, 2024

Opinion Delivered May 1, 2024

Do Not Publish

Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ.

6

See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).
#### SMITH v. GLASS.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Dismissed without opinion.
#### O. & R. ASSETS, Inc. v. BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Dismissed without opinion.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 23
                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors
First Manitowoc Bancorp, Inc.:

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(No. 333-85749) on Form S-8 of First Manitowoc Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated
February 1, 2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of First Manitowoc
Bancorp, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and 2000 and the related
consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the
two years in the period ended December 31, 2001, which report appears in the
December 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K of First Manitowoc Bancorp, Inc.

Wipfli Ullrich Bertelson LLP
Green Bay, Wisconsin
March 11, 2002
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 23a

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
First Manitowoc Bancorp, Inc.

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(No. 333-85749) on Form S-8 of First Manitowoc Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated
February 4, 2000, relating to the consolidated statements of income,
stockholders' equity and cash flows of First Manitowoc Bancorp, Inc. and
subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 1999, which report appears in the
December 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K of First Manitowoc Bancorp, Inc.

KPMG LLP

Milwaukee, Wisconsin
March 11, 2002
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 156 

To make the moratorium on Internet access taxes and multiple and 

discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce permanent. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. REID (for Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. MCCAIN, and Mr. SUNUNU)) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To make the moratorium on Internet access taxes and multiple and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce 

permanent. 

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 ‘‘Permanent Internet 

5 Tax Freedom Act of 2007’’. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 156 IS

1 SEC. 2. PERMANENT MORATORIUM ON INTERNET ACCESS 

2 TAXES AND MULTIPLE AND DISCRIMINATORY 

3 TAXES ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE. 

4 Section 1101(a) of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 

5 U.S.C. 151 note) is amended by striking ‘‘taxes during 

6 the period beginning November 1, 2003, and ending No7 vember 1, 2007:’’ and inserting ‘‘taxes:’’. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02423-BNB

MILAGRO TAURUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY, and

MICHAEL ASTRUE,

Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

Plaintiff, Milagro Taurus, initiated this action by filing a pro se “Motion for

Injunction” on September 14, 2011. By order dated September 20, 2011, Magistrate

Judge Boyd N. Boland directed Ms. Taurus to cure certain enumerated deficiencies. 

On November 22, 2011, Ms. Taurus filed a document titled “Motion to Close the

Denver Colorado Case # 2011-CV-2423.” In the document, Ms. Taurus states that she

seeks a voluntary dismissal of this action.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) provides that “the plaintiff may dismiss an action without

a court order by filing: (i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either

an answer or a motion for summary judgment . . . .” No answer or motion for summary

judgment has been filed by Defendants in this action. Further, a voluntary dismissal

under Rule 41(a)(1) is effective immediately upon the filing of a written notice of

dismissal, and no subsequent court order is necessary. See J. Moore, Moore's Federal

Practice ¶ 41.02(2) (2d ed. 1995); Hyde Constr. Co. v. Koehring Co., 388 F.2d 501,

Case 1:11-cv-02423-LTB Document 13 Filed 12/01/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
507 (10th Cir. 1968). The Notice, therefore, closes the file as of November 22, 2011.

See Hyde Constr. Co., 388 F.2d at 507. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the action is dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the voluntary dismissal is without prejudice and is

effective as of November 22, 2011, the date Plaintiff filed the Notice in this action. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are denied as moot.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 1st day of December , 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge

United States District Court

Case 1:11-cv-02423-LTB Document 13 Filed 12/01/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1


                                 AMENDMENT NO. 2
                   TO AMTC CORPORATION STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT

     This Amendment No. 2 is entered into as of May 2, 2000, between David P.
Cook ("Cook") and ZixIt Corporation, a Texas corporation ("ZixIt"). Reference is
made to that certain AMTC Corporation Stock Option Agreement, effective as of
April 29, 1998, as amended, between Cook and ZixIt (the "Cook Option").

1. Amendments. The Cook Option is amended as follows:


     o    Delete "4,000,000" from Section 1 and substitute in its place
          "2,627,777." (Note: 2,627,777 shares is the number of shares remaining
          under the Cook Option after giving effect to certain previous
          reallocations of option shares by Mr. Cook.)

     o    Revise Section 2 to read in its entirety as follows: "Vesting. The
          shares of Common Stock subject to the Option are fully vested as of
          the date hereof."

2. No Other Changes. Other than as provided herein, the Cook Option shall remain
in full force and effect.


     Executed on the dates set forth below, to be effective as of the date first
set forth above.

                                   ZIXIT CORPORATION

                                   By:   /s/ STEVE M. YORK
                                        ----------------------
                                        Steve M. York,
                                        Senior Vice President

                                   Date:     May 2, 2000
                                        ----------------------

                                         /s/ DAVID P. COOK
                                        ----------------------
                                        David P. Cook

                                   Date:     5-3-00
                                        ----------------------

                                         /s/ CHERYL G. COOK
                                        ----------------------
                                        Cheryl G. Cook

                                   Date:      5-6-00
                                        ----------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             866,165
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      372,043
<ALLOWANCES>                                       125,000
<INVENTORY>                                        355,179
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,051,409
<PP&E>                                             269,417
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,358,970
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              682,076
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            22,425
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,564,357
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,358,970
<SALES>                                          2,415,271
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,415,271
<CGS>                                              565,229
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      565,229
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          0
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,086,866)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,086,866)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (1.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        


</TABLE>
#### Frank COLLINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 7817.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Jan. 6, 1938.

Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.

E. B. Freed, of Cleveland, Ohio, and Harry Leroy Jones, of" Washington, D. C., for the United States.

PER CURIAM.

It appearing to the court that the opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States in James D. Smyth, etc., et al. v. United States, Dixie Terminal Company v. United States, and United States of America v. Arthur W. Machen, 302 U.S. -, 58 S.Ct. 248, 82 L.Ed. —, decided December 13, 1937, are ruling authority on the questions raised by the appellant in the above-captioned case, it is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the appeal herein pending be, and the same is, dismissed at the cost of the appellant.
813 A.2d 546

#### IN THE MATTER OF SUSAN E. CARDULLO, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

January 17, 2003.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 02-282, concluding that SUSAN E. CARDULLO of LINCOLN PARK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1996, should be reprimanded for violating *RPC*8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that SUSAN E. CARDULLO is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent shall submit quarterly reports to the Office of Attorney Ethics detailing her activities to overcome her addiction to alcohol, for a period of two years and until the further Order of the Court; and it is further

*108ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse' the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-30810 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MELVIN JOHNSON also known as Pap-Poo, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 98-CR-30024-2

-------------------- May 2, 2001 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Melvin Johnson appeals his jury conviction of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent distribute cocaine and crack cocaine. Johnson argues that the testimony from a number of coconspirators was insufficient to support the conspiracy conviction, that the Government failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Johnson was a leader of the conspiracy warranting a four-level increase to his offense level, and that the Government did not verify whether Johnson was onNo. 99-30810 -2- probation when he committed the conspiracy thereby warranting the addition of two criminal history points. The trial testimony of the coconspirators was sufficient evidence proving that Johnson was involved in a drug conspiracy as alleged in count one of the indictment, and we will not review the credibility of those witnesses. See United States v. Villegas-Rodriguez , 171 F.3d 224, 228 (5th Cir. 1999); United States v. Ybarra , 70 F.3d 362, 364 (5th Cir. 1995). The trial testimony further showed that Johnson was the leader of the conspiracy, and the district court did not clearly err when it overruled Johnson’s motion and allowed the four-level increase to his sentence based upon his role in the offense. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a); United States v. Parker , 133 F.3d 322, 329 (5th Cir. 1998). Furthermore, there was no error with the addition of two criminal history points based upon Johnson being on probation at the time he committed the offense of conviction. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d).
AFFIRMED.
#### Moe FENSTER and Claire Fenster, his wife, Ruth Drucker and Dora Kaler, Appellants, v. Irwin H. MAKOVSKY and Bertha Makovsky, his wife, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Nov. 12, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 8, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 99(c)

Household Finance Corporation
HRSI Funding, Inc. II
Household Private Label Credit Card Master Note Trust I, Series 2002-1


Original Class A Principal                      400,000,000.00
Number of Class A Bonds (000's)                     400,000.00
Original Class B Principal                       53,850,000.00
Number of Class B Bonds (000's)                      53,850.00
Original Class C Principal                       30,775,000.00
Number of Class C Bonds (000's)                      30,775.00


Distribution Date

CLASS A
-------
Class A Principal Distributions                                            0.00
Class A Interest                                                  15,705,555.53


CLASS B
-------
Class B Principal Distributions                                            0.00
Class B Interest                                                     916,311.26


CLASS C
-------
Class C Principal Distributions                                            0.00
Class C Interest                                                     669,805.73