alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  1.
    
    The fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods
covered by the Report.
 Date: March 18, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Ramón M. Ruiz-ComasRamón M. Ruiz-ComasPresident and
Chief Executive Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TIMOTHY DEANORE WILKINS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-55805 

D.C. No. 2:18-cv-09116-VAP-E 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 12, 2021**

Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Timothy Deanore Wilkins appeals pro se from the 

district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in 

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

OCT 18 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 20-55805 

needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Albino 

v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). We affirm. 

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Wilkins 

failed to exhaust administrative remedies and failed to raise a genuine dispute of 

material fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to 

him. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (explaining that proper 

exhaustion requires “using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so 

properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits)” (emphasis, 

citation, and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 

1850, 1858-60 (2016) (setting forth circumstances when administrative remedies 

are effectively unavailable).

AFFIRMED.
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 United eSystems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Walter Reid Green, Jr., as Principal Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his 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.





/s/ Walter Reid Green, Jr.Walter Reid Green, Jr.Chief Executive OfficerDate:  April 15, 2010








This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Exhibit 32.1


Certification of Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)





In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 (the “Report”) of SuRo Capital Corp. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Mark D. Klein, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:





(1) The Report 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 Registrant.


/s/ Mark D. KleinName: Mark D. KleinDate: March 11, 2022
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2323 Referred in House (RFH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2323

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 11, 2014

      Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend chapter 21 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that 
 fathers of certain permanently disabled or deceased veterans shall be 
  included with mothers of such veterans as preference eligibles for 
                    treatment in the civil service.

    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 ``Gold Star Fathers Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. PREFERENCE ELIGIBLE TREATMENT FOR FATHERS OF CERTAIN 
              PERMANENTLY DISABLED OR DECEASED VETERANS.

    Section 2108(3) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
striking subparagraphs (F) and (G) and inserting the following:
                    ``(F) the parent of an individual who lost his or 
                her life under honorable conditions while serving in 
                the armed forces during a period named by paragraph 
                (1)(A) of this section, if--
                            ``(i) the spouse of that parent is totally 
                        and permanently disabled; or
                            ``(ii) that parent, when preference is 
                        claimed, is unmarried or, if married, legally 
                        separated from his or her spouse;
                    ``(G) the parent of a service-connected permanently 
                and totally disabled veteran, if--
                            ``(i) the spouse of that parent is totally 
                        and permanently disabled; or
                            ``(ii) that parent, when preference is 
                        claimed, is unmarried or, if married, legally 
                        separated from his or her spouse; and''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by this Act shall take effect 90 days after the 
date of enactment of this Act.

            Passed the Senate September 10, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                NANCY ERICKSON,

                                                             Secretary.
```
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T M A R K S . M U S Z Y N S K I, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. D . L . R U N N E L S ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 15808 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 4 - c v - 0 0 0 8 2 - J A MGG H ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J ohn A . M e nde z , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d June 15, 2011 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , O ’ S C A N N L A IN , an dF IS H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M a rk S . M us z y ns ki , aC a l i f orni as t a t e pr i s one r , appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de rde ny i ng hi s m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on f

ol l ow i ng as e tt l e m e nt a g r e e m e n t in h is 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n . T o th e e x te n t w e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n , it is un der 28 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. W e r evi ew for an abu se of di sc re t i on the deni alof a 

# FI LED JU L 1 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 15808 2 m ot i on t o rec on si der. Sch. D ist. N o. 1J, Mul tno m ah C ou nt y, O r. v. A Can dS

, Inc. , 5 F. 3 d1 2 5 5 , 1 2 6 2 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 9 3 ) . W e a f f i rm. T h e d istrict co u rt d idn o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n b y d en yin g M u sz yn sk i’ s m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on unde rF e d. R . C i v. P . 59 be c aus e M us z y ns ki di d not p r e s e n t an yn e w lyd is c o v e r e de v id e n c e , n o rd idh e a d v a n c e a n yo th e rv iab le g r o u n df o rr e lie f . Se e id. a t 1 2 6 3 ; C oa stalT ransf erC o. v. T

oyota Motor Sa les , U. S. A. , 8 3 3 F .2 d2 0 8 , 2 1 2 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 7 ) ( e v id e n c e is n o t “n e w lyd is c o v e r e d ” if it w as i n the m ov i ng party’ s posse ss i on pri or t o j ud gm ent ). W e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de rM us z y ns ki ’ s c ont e nt i ons c onc e rni ng the unde r l y i ng m e r i t s of

thi s a c t i on be c aus e i tw a s vol unt a r i l ydi s m i s s e d w i thout p r e ju d ic e . Se e C onc ha v . L ondon , 62 F . 3d 14 93 , 15 07 (9th C i r. 19 95 ) ( vo l un t ary di sm i ss alw i tho utprej ud i ce i s notappeal abl e) . W e d e n yM u s z y n s k i’s r e q u e s t in h is r e p lyb r ie f f o rap p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n s e l. AF F I RME D.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MARZETTE KING,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below, 

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 312, 2017

Court Below: Superior Court

of the State of Delaware

ID. No. 1606002410A & B 

Submitted: September 12, 2018

Decided: September 24, 2018

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 

O R D E R

On this 24th day of September 2018, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs 

and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that:

(1) Appellant, Marzette King, appeals from a Superior Court jury verdict 

finding him guilty of Drug Dealing, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, three counts 

of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony (PFDCF), three 

counts of Possession of a Firearm By a Person Prohibited, and one count of 

Possession of Ammunition By a Person Prohibited.
2

(2) King makes three claims, the second two raised for the first time on 

appeal. First, King contends that the Superior Court erred in denying his motion 

for judgment of acquittal on the counts of Drug Dealing and PFDCF because the 

evidence was insufficient to convict him of Drug Dealing—the requisite felony for 

the three PFDCF charges. Second, he contends that the Superior Court committed 

plain error by allowing the jury to consider the PFDCF charges because the evidence 

was insufficient to show a nexus between the purported drug dealing activity and the 

firearms. Finally, he contends that the Superior Court committed plain error by 

allowing the jury to consider the Person Prohibited charges because the evidence 

was insufficient to show that he had possession of those items on or about June 3, 

2016, the date specified in the indictment.

(3) We affirm the Superior Court’s denial of King’s motion for judgment 

of acquittal for the reasons given in the court’s bench ruling dated May 10, 2017.

(4) As to King’s second two claims, we find no plain error. “To warrant 

review on appeal when the issue has not been fairly presented [to the trial court], 

there must be ‘plain error.’”1 “Under the plain error standard of review, the error 

complained of must be so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the 

 

1 Zhurbin v. State, 104 A.3d 108, 113 (Del. 2014).
3

fairness and integrity of the trial process.”2 “[T]he doctrine of plain error is limited 

to material defects which are apparent on the face of the record; which are basic, 

serious and fundamental in their character, and which clearly deprive an accused of 

a substantial right, or which clearly show manifest injustice.”3 There is no such 

error here: the Superior Court’s alleged errors do not amount to “material defects 

which are apparent on the face of the record.”4

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr 

Justice

 

2 Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986).

3

Id.

4

Id.
#### EDWARD KUBIAK v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY.

June 13, 1985.

Petition for certification denied. (See 198 *N.J.Super.*115)
News United States Air Force
 Keesler medics ready to support Hurricane Irma relief effortsPublished Sept. 10, 2017
                        
                        By Tech. Sgt. Ryan Crane
                        
                        
                        81st Training Wing Public Affairs
                **KEESLER AIR FORCE BASE, Miss. (AFNS) --**
                Medical Airmen from Keesler Air Force Base are standing by to support Hurricane Irma relief efforts if called upon.
Fresh off of a deployment to Houston, to support Hurricane Harvey relief efforts, a critical care air transport team is standing by to provide the same capability to those affected by Irma.
A CCATT and a medical logistics team from the 81st Medical Group are part of the Air Force’s aeromedical evacuation system. The CCATT typically consists of physicians specializing in areas such as critical care, emergency medicine, anesthesiology, surgery and cardio pulmonology.
The teams’ primary mission, if deployed to Florida, will be to operate a flying hospital, picking up patients who require advanced medical care, and transporting them to a higher echelon of care.
In addition to the CCATT, a 28-person patient-staging team from Keesler AFB could also be called up to assist relief efforts in Florida. The patient-staging team supports the CCATT by prepping patients before they are transported.care 



Humanitarian 



assistance 



medics 



Keesler AFB 



relief 



81st Medical Group 



CCATT 



transport 



response 



flying hospital 



hurricane irma
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 169 (Wednesday, September 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 53638]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21845]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1701]


Approval for Manufacturing Authority; Foreign-Trade Zone 22; LG 
Electronics Mobilecomm USA, Inc. (Cell Phone Kitting and Distribution); 
Chicago, IL

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Illinois International Port District, grantee of 
Foreign-Trade Zone 22, has requested manufacturing authority on behalf 
of LG Electronics Mobilecomm USA, Inc. (LGEMU), within FTZ 22 in 
Bolingbrook, Illinois, (FTZ Docket 3-2010, filed 1/14/2010);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment has been given in the 
Federal Register (75 FR 4343-4344, 1/27/2010) and the application has 
been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; 
and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the 
public interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders:
    The application for manufacturing authority under zone procedures 
within FTZ 22 on behalf of LG Electronics Mobilecomm USA, Inc., as 
described in the application and Federal Register notice, is approved, 
subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 
400.28.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 19th day of August 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
    Attest:
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-21845 Filed 8-31-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE

JOHN RAMON OGAZ,

Relator.

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-19-00308-CV 

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator John Ramon Ogaz, pro se, is seeking a writ of mandamus against the Honorable 

Laura Strathmann, judge of the 388th District Court. Relator alleges that Judge Strathmann 

improperly transferred his declaratory judgment action to Probate Court No. 2. The petition for 

writ of mandamus is denied.

Generally, mandamus relief is appropriate only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or to 

compel the performance of a ministerial duty, and where the relator has no adequate remedy by 

appeal. In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360, 364 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding). The burden is on the

relator to show he is entitled to mandamus relief. See In re Ford Motor Company, 165 S.W.3d 

315, 317 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding). After reviewing the mandamus petition and record, we 

conclude that Relator has failed to show that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we 
2

deny the petition for writ of mandamus.1

JEFF ALLEY, Chief Justice

January 23, 2020

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)

1

 All pending motions are denied as moot.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: December 8, 2011*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**F.118.b Private Pension Funds Defined Benefit Plans** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
News United States Air Force
 Fallen Defender honored with boat dedicationPublished Feb. 28, 2017
                        
                        By Cheryl Sawyers
                        
                        
                        Team Eglin Public Affairs
                **EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. (AFNS) --**
                The 96th Security Forces Squadron christened a new patrol vessel in honor of Senior Airman Nathan Sartain, a fallen defender at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, Feb. 24, 2017.Sartain, a Pensacola native, was a member of the 66th Security Forces Squadron, from Hanscom AFB, Massachusetts, and died Oct.2, 2015, when a C-130J Super Hercules crashed shortly after takeoff from Jalalabad Airfield in Afghanistan.The new patrol vessel, Sartain-20 was christened by his mother, Janice Sartain, while his father unveiled the name on the side of it.“I am so honored to have been a part of this ceremony and that Nathan’s Air Force family thought to honor him in this way,” she said.Also in attendance was Sartain’s friend, Staff Sgt. Travis Jones, a 96th SFS member, whom was stationed with Sartain before his death.“I am privileged to be a part of this ceremony and to be stationed at a base that found a way to honor a fellow defender,” Jones said. “From here on out, when I hear the call sign Sartain-20, it will always remind me of Nathan.”The new marine vessel will provide waterborne deterrence, detection and response to any threat against the base. Its area of responsibility will be the 153 miles of shoreline that make up Eglin Main, Camp Pinchot, Weekly Bayou and Ben’s Lake Marina.It joins another security forces vessel, the Nathan-25, also named after a fallen defender, Senior Airman Jason Nathan, who died in Iraq in 2007.Eglin AFB 



defenders 



AF family 



honor 



Hanscom AFB
EXHIBIT 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Not Filed Pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934





In connection with the Annual Report of Ohr Pharamceutical, Inc (the Company) on Form 10K for the period ending September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof )the Report), I, Andrew Limpert, Chief Financial Officer, and Secretary/Treasurer of 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:



|   |                                                                                                                      
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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.



Dated:January 14, 2010





/s/  ANDREW LIMPERT

Name:Andrew Limpert



Title:Interim Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 99.1



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 VCG Holding Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Troy H. Lowrie, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of 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 the best of my 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.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Troy H.
Lowrie

Troy H. Lowrie

Chairman of the Board and Chief

Executive Officer



Dated: May 19, 2003