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

                   Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350


     In connection with the filing with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission of National Diversified Services, Inc.'s (the "Company")
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 (the
"Report"), the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, hereby certify that (i) in our capacities as officers of
the Company, (ii) to each of our own respective actual knowledge, and (iii)
solely for the purpose of compliance with 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, that:

     (1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of ss.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.

          The above certification is given as of the date of the Report and is
     limited to the periods covered by the Report.

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Certificate on
     November 12, 2004.

                                           By: /s/ Morry F. Rubin
                                               ------------------
                                                   Chief Executive Officer

                                           By: /s/ Morry F. Rubin
                                               ------------------
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
[No. 43163-3-I.

Division One.

May 30, 2000.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Leonard Lavery, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 97-1-00852-9, Joan E. DuBuque, J., entered July 24, 1998. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Cox, J., concurred in by Coleman and Grosse, JJ.
#### EUGENE ANDERSON v. GARY J. HILTON.

Jan. 14, 1980.

Petition for certification denied.
II 

Calendar No. 148 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 375 

To require Senate candidates to file designations, statements, and reports 

in electronic form. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 25, 2013 

Mr. TESTER (for himself, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. 

DURBIN, Mrs. MCCASKILL, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. MERKLEY, 

Mr. BEGICH, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. KING, 

Ms. WARREN, Mr. FRANKEN, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. 

UDALL of New Mexico, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. GRAHAM, 

Mr. REED, Mr. BAUCUS, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. HEINRICH, Mr. WARNER, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. SANDERS, Mrs. BOXER, and Mr. JOHNSON of 

South Dakota) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration 

JULY 24, 2013 

Reported by Mr. SCHUMER, without amendment 

A BILL 

To require Senate candidates to file designations, statements, 

and reports in electronic form. 

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


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

S 375 RS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Senate Campaign Dis3 closure Parity Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. FILING BY SENATE CANDIDATES WITH COMMIS5 SION. 

6 Section 302(g) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 

7 of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 432(g)) is amended to read as follows: 

8 ‘‘(g) FILING WITH THE COMMISSION.—All des9 ignations, statements, and reports required to be 

10 filed under this Act shall be filed with the Commis11 sion.’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 148 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 375 

A BILL 

To require Senate candidates to file designations, 

statements, and reports in electronic form. 

JULY 24, 2013 

Reported without amendment 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 18, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, August 18, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A16I0263. ALDI INC. (GEORGIA) v. LARRY H. MULL.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2015SUCV1327
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVA NIA** 

IN RE: REAPPOINTMENT S TO COMMITTEE ON COURT REPORTING AND TRANSCRIPTS : : : : : : : No. 485 JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION DOCKET

**ORDER**
**PER CURIA M**  **AN D**  **NOW** , this 6 th day of Ju ly , 201 7 , the following members are hereby reappointed to the Committee on Court Reporting and Transcripts for terms expiring June 1, 20 20 : The Honorable Maureen A. Skerda President Judge, Court of Common Pleas of W arren & Forest Counties Gerald C. Montella, Esq. District Court Administrator , Delaware County

C heryl L. Hansberry Official Court Reporter , Dauphin County Samuel W. Milkes, Esq.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3903

___________

Shirley Shontos, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner *

of Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant-Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 13, 2005

Filed: August 10, 2005

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, LAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In a prior appeal, a panel of this court held that Appellant Shirley Shontos was

entitled to Disabled Widow’s Benefits. Shontos v. Barnhart, 328 F.3d 418 (8th Cir.

2003). Subsequently, Shontos filed for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to

Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). The Commissioner of Social Security

denied Shontos’s request for attorney’s fees and the district court affirmed, finding

that although Shontos eventually prevailed in her request for Disabled Widow’s

Benefits, the Commissioner was substantially justified in denying benefits to Shontos.
-2-

Shontos is entitled to attorney’s fees unless “the position of the United States

was substantially justified.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). The Commissioner’s denial

of attorney’s fees is substantially justified if the government’s decision to deny

benefits to Shontos was “clearly reasonable, well founded in law and fact, solid

though not necessarily correct.” S.E.C. v. Kluesner, 834 F.2d 1438, 1440 (8th Cir.

1987) (quoting United States v. 1,378.65 Acres of Land, 794 F.2d 1313, 1318 (8th

Cir. 1986)) (emphasis in original). A district court’s order affirming the denial of

attorney’s fees under the EAJA is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id. at 1439. 

“[T]he most powerful indicator of the reasonableness of the government’s

position is the rationale of the court’s majority opinion in the first appeal.” Lauer v.

Barnhart, 321 F.3d 762, 765 (8th Cir. 2003). In the first appeal, this court reversed

the district court because it gave insufficient weight to adverse evidence in the record.

Shontos, 328 F.3d at 421-24, 425-27. Although this court ordered that Shontos be

awarded disability benefits, the government’s decision to deny benefits to Shontos,

though incorrect, was reasonable. The government’s position was supported by

evidence in the record, and at the time the government chose to deny benefits to

Shontos, “reasonable people could differ as to [the appropriateness of the contested

action].” Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988) (citations omitted); see also

Lauer, 321 F.3d at 765 (finding that the government’s position lacked “any evidence

in its support”). 

Accordingly, Shontos is not entitled to attorney’s fees under the EAJA, and the

order of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

______________________________
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 2228

ANTHONY G. BRYANT , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
WELLS FARGO , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. Margaret B. Seymour , Senior District Judge. ( 2:21

- cv - 03463

- MBS

- MHC )

Submitted : January 20, 2022 Decided: January 24, 2022

Before WILKINSON , DIAZ , and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Anthony G. Bryant, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-2228 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/24/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Anthony G. Bryant seeks to appeal a civil action currently pending in the district

court. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 54 5

- 46 (1949). Bryant does not seek to appeal a final order or an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequat ely presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 21-2228 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/24/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
[No. 18482-0-III.

Division Three.

April 6, 2000.]

#### Betty J. Poutous, *Respondent,*v. William C. Harrison, et al., *Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 97-2-03124-3, Robert D. Austin, J., entered May 14, 1999. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements of American Business Financial Services, Inc.
and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999 and the six months then ended and is
qualified in its entirety to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          18,916
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,242
<ALLOWANCES>                                       339
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               203,478
<PP&E>                                          24,016
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,148
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 491,898
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          259,516
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                      63,343
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   491,898
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                58,417
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   45,837
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   709
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,063
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,580
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,032
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,548
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,548
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.11





</TABLE>
Filed: March 23, 1999

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Nos. 98-6471(L)

(CR-92-34, CA-97-209-P, CA-97-210-P)

United States of America,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

Alton Ray Truesdale, et al,

Defendants - Appellants.

ORDER

The court amends its opinion filed September 8, 1998, as

follows:

On the cover sheet, section 4, line 3, and on page 2, text of

opinion, line 7 -- case number “CA-97-209-P” is added to the lower

court information.

For the Court - By Direction

/s/ Patricia S. Connor

Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6471

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ALTON RAY TRUESDALE,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 98-6472

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TENNISON ALEXANDER HARRIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior

District Judge. (CR-92-34, CA-97-209-P, CA-97-210-P)

Submitted: July 28, 1998 Decided: September 8, 1998
3

Before ERVIN and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alton Ray Truesdale, Tennison Alexander Harris, Appellants Pro Se.

Kenneth Davis Bell, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Alton Ray Truesdale and Tennison Alexander Harris seek to

appeal the district court’s orders denying their motions filed

under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed

the records and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and

dismiss the appeals on the reasoning of the district court. United

States v. Truesdale, No. CR-92-34; CA-97-209-P (W.D.N.C. Mar. 4,

1998); United States v. Harris, Nos. CR-92-34; CA-97-210-P

(W.D.N.C. Mar. 9, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
[No. 24012-2-II.

Division Two.

May 5, 2000.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. John Allen Taylor, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 98-1-01602-9, Brian M. Tollefson, J., entered November 5, 1998. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Seinfeld, J., concurred in by Houghton and Bridgewater, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JANUARY 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1996
<CASH>                                         348,047
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,454,036
<ALLOWANCES>                                   169,152
<INVENTORY>                                 13,793,072
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            19,183,794
<PP&E>                                      26,496,089
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,024,269
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              36,203,290
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,006,886
<BONDS>                                      3,721,881
<COMMON>                                        34,640
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,717,824
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                36,203,290
<SALES>                                     17,047,573
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,047,573
<CGS>                                       14,567,185
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,567,185
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,522,773
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                12,900
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             135,887
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                808,828
<INCOME-TAX>                                   323,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            485,828
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   485,828
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15
        

</TABLE>
[No. 18302-5-III.

Division Three.

April 25, 2000.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Jesse J. Luna, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 98-8-01827-1, Joseph Valente, J. Pro Tern., entered February 24, 1999. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Kurtz, C.J., concurred in by Sweeney and Kato, JJ.
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.


  I, John Isbrandtsen, certify that:

  1.I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A and all reports on Form 10-D
    required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on
    Form 10-K/A of Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2011-2 (the "Exchange Act periodic
    reports");

  2.Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
    whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
    to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
    light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
    misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

  3.Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
    information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
    covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

  4.Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required
    in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
    disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have
    fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all
    material respects; and

  5.All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
    for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
    assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
    securities required to be included in this report in accordance with
    Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18
    have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
    disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance
    described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
    10-K/A.

    In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
    information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: First
    Republic Bank as Servicer, PHH Mortgage Corporation as Servicer, QBE
    FIRST Insurance Agency, Inc. as Sub-Contractor for SunTrust Mortgage,
    Inc., Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. as Servicer, SunTrust Mortgage,
    Inc. as Servicer, U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee, Wells Fargo
    Bank, N.A. as Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Paying Agent, Wells Fargo
    Bank, N.A. as Custodian and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Master Servicer and
    Securities Administrator.

    Dated:   December 11, 2013


    /s/ John Isbrandtsen
    Signature

    Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
    (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
Exhibit 31.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

of Periodic Report
Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) and Rule 15d-14(a)

I, Seth Taube, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:

1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Sierra Income Corporation (the Company);

2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4) The Companys other certifying officer(s)
and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15 (e)) for the Company and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company,
including its subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as
of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the
Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Companys most recent fiscal quarter (the Companys fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and

5) The Companys other
certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Companys board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control
over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Companys internal control over financial reporting.

Date: March 14, 2013



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ Seth Taube               
|Seth Taube                   
|Chief Executive Officer      
|(Principal Executive Officer)