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



Exhibit 32.1
    /s/ Kenneth A. Joyce     *Print Name: Kenneth A. JoyceTitle: Chief Executive OfficerDate: November 14, 2006
 
 *
    
    This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United State Code, and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange
Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that Section. This certification shall not be
deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference
into any such filing. 42
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 20-0585 DONNIE LEE STANDLEY,

Petitioner and Appellant, v. STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee. 

## I
NOV 1 7 2022 Bovv wood C. 7,t Court t,,„ to ot ,,ontana ORDER

Before this Court are three motions filed by self-represented Appellant Donnie Lee Standley. Standley moves to expand the record to include the record from federal cases in the United StatesDistrict CourtandtheNinth Circuit Court ofAppeals. He movesto "copy forward service" because where he is incarcerated, he cannot make or pay for copies of any other documents. Lastly, Standley moves to request a waiver ofthe required service ofcopies to opposing counsel as well as toprovide copies ofother court decisions from his federal cases. The State has not filed a response to any ofthese motions, most likely in part due to the lack ofservice to the State. Upon review ofthis Court's docket for this appeal, Standley filed his reply briefon November 15, 2022, and on that day, the case was sent to this Court. We will ensure that opposing counsel receives a copy ofthe reply brief. This Court, however, cannot provide Standley with his other requested relief. We decline to expand the record to include his federal cases, because it is improper, and we decline to serve opposing counsel with his motions or other court documents. As a result, his request for a waiver is not necessary. A decision will be issued in due course. Therefore, IT IS ORDEREDthat Standley'sMotion to Expandthe Record, Motion Requesting Copy Forward Service, and Motion Requesting Court Order and Waiver of Procedural Compliance are all DENIED. 11/17/2022

Case Number: DA 20-0585The Clerk is directed to provide a copy ofthis Order to counsel ofrecord alongwith

a copy ofStandley's reply briefand to Donnie Lee Standley personally. DATED this )
--9-.
-ff

iy ofNovember, 2022.

For the Court,

ChiefJustice

2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6942

HARRY JAMES JONES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Frank D. Whitney, 

Chief District Judge. (1:13-cv-00342-FDW)

Submitted: September 23, 2014 Decided: September 26, 2014

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harry James Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, 

III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Harry James Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition

and denying his motion for a certificate of appealability. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 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 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition 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 Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Jones’ motion to attach an amendment to his informal brief 

that was not before the district court, deny a certificate of 

appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 
3

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
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 periodic report of Rancon Realty Fund V (the Partnership) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Daniel L. Stephenson, General Partner of the Partnership, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title
18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that I perform the functions of chief executive officer and chief financial officer of the Partnership, and that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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
Partnership at the dates and for the periods indicated.

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 with the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by
the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This Certification has not been, and
shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission



|                   |  |                                      
|------------------ |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: May 15, 2006 |  | /s/ Daniel L. Stephenson             
|                   |  | Daniel L. Stephenson, General Partner
|                   |  | Rancon Realty Fund V
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 162 (Monday, August 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 51854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21013]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Thursday, September 9, 2010 at 10 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., 
and continuing, as needed, on weekdays during regular Commission 
business hours, through Friday, October 1, 2010.

PLACE: Commission conference room, 901 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 200, 
Washington, DC 20268-0001.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Decision in Docket No. R2010-4, Rate 
Adjustment due to Extraordinary or Exceptional Circumstances.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Stephen L. Sharfman, General 
Counsel, Postal Regulatory Commission, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a9daddccd9c1ccc787dac1c8dbcfc4c8c7e9d9dbca87cec6df"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aad9decfdac2cfc484d9c2cbd8ccc7cbc4eadad8c984cdc5dc">[email protected]</span></a> or 
202-789-6820.

    Dated: August 19, 2010.
Shoshana M. Grove,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-21013 Filed 8-19-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7710-FW-S


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

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

## FILED June 25, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-41536 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JUAN MANUEL LOPEZ-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-02-CR-446-1

-------------------- Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Juan Manuel Lopez-Ramirez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Lopez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Lopez maintains that he pleaded guilty toNo. 02-41536 -2- an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Lopez acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Esther Schneiderman, as Executrix of Abraham Schneiderman, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Kings County,

June 3, 1957.

*Harry J. Grayson*for executrix, petitioner.

*Martm J. Herts,*special guardian for testator’s natural-born grandchildren.

*Eugene J. Fallon,*special guardian for adopted child of testator’s daughter.

*A. Lionel Levy*for State Tax Commission, respondent.

*Morton Pepper*for New York Guild for the Jewish Blind, respondent.

*Bachrach & Bisgyer*for Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital, respondent.

Maximilian Moss, S.

Construction of testator’s will is required in connection with his gifts in trust ‘‘ for each of my grandchildren of the *whole blood*who shall survive me ” (emphasis supplied). He was survived by five grandchildren, the natural issue of three of his children, and by an adopted son of another child. The adoption was known to the testator prior to the execution by him of his will. The adopted child is not related by blood to the testator.

Testator further provided that upon the death of any of “ my grandchildren of the whole blood ” prior to attaining age 21, his trust was to be divided equally among the surviving beneficiaries and testator additionally provided that ‘ ‘ my grandchil*600dren of the whole blood shall be my residuary beneficiaries.” While all of the five grandchildren as between themselves are not of the “ whole blood ” as their parents are not the same *(Matter of Skidmore,*148 Misc. 569, 579), they are of the *“*whole blood ” to the testator as each possesses the same ingredients in the composition of his blood as the other *(Matter of Skidmore, supra,*p. 579). The term “ whole blood ” has an accepted meaning, and since there are persons precisely meeting the description thereof, the court may not go further *(Matter of Skidmore, supra,*p. 581 and cases cited; *Matter of Ellis,*178 Misc. 491, affd. 264 App. Div. 846). The court accordingly holds that under the language of the will the adopted son of testator’s child is not one of testator’s beneficiaries included in the group of “ grandchildren of the whole blood ”, and that the only persons within that class are the five natural children of testator’s three children. Settle decree on notice.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HUGO AVIANTO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-71283

Agency No. A099-777-203

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 19, 2013** 

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Hugo Avianto, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration

judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction

FILED

DEC 5 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual

findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the

petition for review.

The agency denied Avianto’s claim on credibility grounds and on the merits. 

With respect to the harms Avianto suffered from his ex-wife and her family,

substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Avianto did not

establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, because he

failed to show the government was unwilling or unable to protect him. See CastroMartinez v. Holder, 674 F.3d 1073, 1080-82 (9th Cir. 2011). With respect to the

1997 motorcycle attack, the harm Avianto’s family suffered during the 1998 riots,

and the 2002 bombing of Avianto’s church, substantial evidence supports the

agency’s conclusion that Avianto failed to establish these incidents rose to the level

of persecution, even considered cumulatively. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1059-60. 

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Avianto failed to

establish a well-founded fear of persecution based on these incidents. See

Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (fear of future harm is too

speculative). Accordingly, even if credible, Avianto’s asylum claim fails.

Because Avianto failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily

fails to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye

2
 v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

Finally, Avianto has not “specifically and distinctly argued and raised” the

issue of CAT relief. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir.

2005) (failure to raise a claim results in waiver) (quotation marks and citation

omitted). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998             JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-31-1998             JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998             OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,326,740               2,591,526
<RECEIVABLES>                                  561,354                (27,581)
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0                       0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                         13,647,948              13,361,199
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,536,041              15,925,144
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0                       0
<PAYABLES>                                     272,045                 237,150
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0                       0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                   0                       0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                    16,263,996              15,687,994
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,536,041              15,925,144
<TRADING-REVENUE>                              592,926               (490,321)
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                           504,985                 273,491
<COMMISSIONS>                                (150,093)               (154,180)
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                        0                       0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<COMPENSATION>                                (52,930)                  59,054
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                894,887               (311,956)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   894,887               (311,956)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
Order entered August 8, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00609-CR

RODOLFO CHAPA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court of Appeals No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. MC-18-R0002-D

ORDER

On July 22, 2019, we ordered this appeal submitted without a reporter’s record and 

ordered appellant’s brief due. As noted by the State in its August 5, 2019 objection, this is an 

appeal from a judgment of the Carrollton Municipal Court in Dallas which was then appealed to 

the Dallas County Criminal Court of Appeals No. 1. Under the government code, the record and 

briefs from the County Criminal Court of Appeals No. 1 “constitute the record and briefs on 

appeal.”

We VACATE our previous order to the extent it ordered appellant’s brief due. The 

briefs are contained in the clerk’s record filed May 29, 2019. This appeal is at issue and will be 

submitted in due course.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. SS.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of CyberOptics Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Steven M. Quist, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 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.


                                       /s/ Steven M. Quist
                                       -----------------------
                                       Steven M. Quist
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       November 13, 2002
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10(D)

     [LOGO APPEARS HERE]
     3300 Highway # 7, Suite 904, Concord, Ontario L4M 4K3


                                                    Brian E. Levy
                                                    President and
                                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                                    Direct: (905) 760-9708

February 15, 2000

Mr. Jeffrey A. Losch
3300 Highway # 7
Suite 904
Concord, ON
L4K 4M3

Dear Jeff:
                       Re: Amendment to Employment Letter

     This letter confirms the following amendments to the letter agreement
between you and InterTAN, Inc. (the "Company") dated February 23, 1999
concerning your employment arrangements with the Company (the "Agreement"):

     The Agreement is hereby amended by the addition of the following clause to
the Agreement:

     "Change of Control
      -----------------
     In the event that you are either:
        (i)  involuntarily terminated; or
        (ii) there is a material reduction in the scope or level of your duties,
             responsibilities or the effective authority associated with your
             position within an eighteen (18) month period following a "change
             of control" (as such term is defined in the Company's Deferred
             Compensation Plan, as amended) of the Company,

     you shall be entitled to receive severance benefits in an amount equal to
     twelve (12) months of your then current base salary and base bonus, payable
     in one single lump sum payment, and shall be entitled to the continuation
     of Company paid health, dental and life insurance (then in effect, whether
     group or non-group) benefits for such 12 month period."

          All other terms of your Agreement remain in full force and effect.
Nothing herein modifies or otherwise amends any of your rights and entitlements
under any other of the Company's plans and programs in which you participate,
including, without limiting the
<PAGE>

generality of the foregoing, the 1996 Stock Option Plan, the Deferred
Compensation Plan and the Employee Stock Purchase Program.

            If the foregoing is acceptable, please sign and return a copy of
this letter to the attention of the undersigned.


                                                 Sincerely,
                                                 InterTAN, Inc.

                                                 /s/ Brian E. Levy

                                                 By: Brian E. Levy
                                                     President and Chief
                                                     Executive Officer

Agreed to and Accepted
this 21st day of February, 2000.


/s/ Jeffrey A. Losch
___________________________
Jeffrey A. Losch