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


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of Summer Valley Acquisition Corporation
(the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2014 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                             /s/ Andrew Yakub
                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                 Chief Financial Officer
Date: April 13, 2015
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 61**  **08**

LEON PARRISH MARSHALL , P etitioner

- Appellant ,
v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Ea stern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Rebecca Beach Smith , Chief District Judge. ( 2 :14

- cv - 00 119

- RBS

- TEM )

Submitted : April 23, 2015 Decided: April 28, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Leon Parrish Marshall , Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding pre cedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Leon Parrish Marshall appeal s the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit ju stice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 distri ct 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 (200 0); 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 constitut ional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Marshall has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss t he appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Pension Partners  1993-D,  Ltd.'s balance sheet and statement of operations con-
tained in its Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended June 30, 1998 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         1,088
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  33,082
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               34,170
<PP&E>                                         3,550,880
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,318,259)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,266,791
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          121,732
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,145,059
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,266,791
<SALES>                                        89,155
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               89,174
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  225,298
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (162,484)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (162,484)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (162,484)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes  lease  operating  expenses,  production  taxes  and  depreciation,
depletion and  amortization  expense.  Excludes general and  administrative  and
interest expense.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
584 A.2d 244

#### ALFRED A. SLOCUM v. EDDIE C. MOORE.

June 11, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

August 1 3 , 2021 

# Order

Clerk August 1 3 , 2021

16 3397 ( 12 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 16 3397

v COA: 35 7008

Wayne CC: 15

- 007718

- FC

TIFFANIE MONIQUE EDWARDS

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant

- appellant to waive the filing

fees is GRANTED as to this case only

.
Exhibit 12


1/16/97

To: The Board of Directors of Interiors Inc.
    320 Washington St.
    Mt. Vernon, N.Y. 10553

From: Don Feldman

Re:  Resignation from Board of Directors of Interiors

I am submitting my resignation from the Board of Directors of Interiors, Inc. 
effective as of January 31, 1997.

I should also be eliminated from being an officer of Interiors, Inc.  Since 
the acquisition of Artisan House has and will take up all of my time, I believe
you should find someone who could work with you on the East Coast.

I appreciate all of your support and friendship during the past year and one
half and will continue to sell Interiors/Artisan products.

You can contact me at any time to answer any questions or be of help to you 
if necessary.

Sincerely,

/s/ Don Feldman
Don Feldman

Faxed to:
Max Munn 
Michael Amore
Roger Lourie - 718-359-8568
Richard Josephberg - 212-370-4505
Irvin Rothfarb - 908-613-0244

<PAGE>

                                   SIGNATURES


     Pursuant to the requirements of the Security Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized.


                                INTERIORS, INC.



February 19, 1997             By:  /s/ Max Munn
                                   Max Munn, President and 
                                    Chief Executive Officer





February 19, 1997             By:  /s/ Michael J. Amore
                                   Michael J. Amore, Vice President
                                   and Chief Financial Officer
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-17-00673-CR

Michael Todd Englert, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 119TH DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY

NO. B-16-0824-SB, THE HONORABLE JAY K. WEATHERBY, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R F O R C L E R K T O P R O V I D E

A P P E L L A T E R E C O R D TO A P P E L L A N T

PER CURIAM

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw supported 

by a brief concluding that the instant appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Appellant’s counsel has certified to the Court that he 

provided copies of the motion and brief to appellant, advised appellant of his right to examine 

the appellate record and file a pro se response, and supplied appellant with a form motion for 

pro se access to the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2014). Appellant has timely filed the motion requesting access to the appellate record with 

this Court.

Appellant’s pro se motion is granted. We hereby direct the clerk of the trial 

court to provide a copy of the reporter’s record and clerk’s record to appellant, and to provide 
written verification to this Court of the date and manner in which the appellate record was 

provided, on or before April 16, 2018. See id. at 321.

It is ordered on April 6, 2018.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Field

Do Not Publish
584 A.2d 199

#### HARRY A. COOMBS v. N.L. CHEMICALS, INC., ET AL.

May 1, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
No. 87-746.

#### Michael H. et al. *v.*Gerald D.

Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Probable jurisdiction noted.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James E. CLIFTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-6889.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 21, 2000.

Decided Jan. 5, 2001.

James E. Clifton, pro se. Robert Andrew Spencer, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, VA, for appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

James E. Clifton appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition challenging the computation of his sentence for failure to provide evidence of exhaustion of administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the rea*121soning of the district court.*
      *See United States v. Clifton,*No. CR-75-84-A (E.D. Va. June 20, 2000). 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.*

To the extent that Clifton seeks to receive credit toward his federal sentence for time spent in state custody for state court convictions which caused his federal parole to be repeatedly revoked, we note that the district court and this court have ruled against Clifton on this issue in the context of a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. *See Clifton v. United States Parole Comm’n,*No. 98-6527, 1998 WL 454749 (4th Cir. July 29, 1998) (unpublished).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1847

In re: SHAMONTE LAMONT WALL,

Petitioner.

On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus.

(1:05-cr-00096-1)

Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 1, 2010

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shamonte Lamont Wall, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Shamonte Lamont Wall petitions for a writ of mandamus 

seeking an order directing the district court to vacate and 

dismiss his criminal convictions. We conclude that Wall is not 

entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used 

only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States 

Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. 

Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, 

mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a 

clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan 

Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Mandamus may not be 

used as a substitute for appeal, In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 

503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007), and is not available if the 

petitioner has other adequate means to seek the desired relief. 

In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir. 2001). 

The relief sought by Wall is not available by way of 

mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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.

PETITION DENIED
584 A.2d 251

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CHERYL PATRICIA BUTTS.

June 11, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 62499]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25596]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Chequamegon Resource Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Chequamegon Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Park 
Falls, Wisconsin. The committee is meeting as authorized under the 
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L 110-
343) and in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The 
purpose is to hold a meeting to review submitted Title II project 
proposals and recommend funding of projects in accordance with Public 
Law 110-343.

DATES: The meeting will be held on November 4, 2010, and will begin at 
10 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Forest Service Park Falls 
Office, Large Conference Room, 1170 4th Ave. South, Park Falls, WI. 
Written comments should be sent to Sarah Yoshikane, Chequamegon-Nicolet 
National Forest, P.O. Box 578, 113 East Bayfield St., Washburn, WI 
54891. Comments may also be sent via e-mail to [email protected], or 
via facsimile to 715-373-2878.
    All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are 
placed in the record and are available for public inspection and 
copying. The public may inspect comments received at Chequamegon-
Nicolet National Forest, 113 East Bayfield St., Washburn, WI 54891. 
Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to 715-373-2667 to facilitate 
entry into the building.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Yoshikane, RAC coordinator, 
USDA, Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, 113 East Bayfield St., 
Washburn, WI 54891; (715) 373-2667; E-mail [email protected].
    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) 
may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through 
Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. The 
following business will be conducted: (1) Review and recommend funding 
of Title II project proposals in accordance with Public Law 110-343; 
and (2) Public Comment. Persons who wish to bring related matters to 
the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the 
Committee staff before or after the meeting.

    Dated: September 29, 2010.
Paul I. V. Strong,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 2010-25596 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
```
#### Grant *v.*The State.

No. 6399.

Apil 16, 1928.

Murder. Before Judge Moore. Fulton superior court. October 29, 1927.

*Scott & Eornbuclde,*for plaintiff in error.

*George M. Napier, attorney-general, John A. Boylcm, solicitor-general, T. B. Gross, assistant attorney-general, J. W. LeCraw,*and *E. L. Stephens,*contra.

Atkinson, J.

No complaint is made of any error of law committed at the trial. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and there was no error in refusing the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2019

ANSELME FIDELIS SOP TAGNE, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A96-272-477) Submitted: March 15, 2006 Decided: April 4, 2006 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edwin K. Fogam, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Gerard J. Mene, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Anselme Fidelis Sop Tagne, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Sop Tagne fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Sop Tagne cannot meet the higher standard to qualify for withholding of removal. Chen v. INS , 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca , 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
Document

NORTHWEST BANK
NORTHWEST BANCSHARES, INC.
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This amendment is made effective as of the 1st day of November, 2021 (the “Effective Date”), by and between Northwest Bank (the “Bank”), a Pennsylvania-chartered savings bank with its principal offices at 100 Liberty Street, Warren, Pennsylvania 16365 and Northwest Bancshares, Inc., the holding company of the Bank, and __________ (“Executive”).


WHEREAS, the Bank is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Northwest Bancshares, Inc., a stock holding company incorporated in the State of Maryland (the “Company”); and


WHEREAS, the Company, the Bank and the Executives each entered into an employment agreement dated [Insert Date] (collectively, the “Agreements”); and


WHEREAS, the Company, the Bank and the Executives believe it is in the best interests of the Company, the Bank and each Executive to modify the Agreements by striking Section 4(f) thereof pertaining to a reduction in benefits to avoid an excess parachute payment.


NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, Section 4(f) of the Agreements shall be deleted in its entirety; and


RESOLVED FURTHER, except as expressly modified by this revision, the Agreements shall remain in full force and effect and this Amendment together with each Agreement, shall constitute one agreement between the parties. 












IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Company, the Bank and the Executive have signed (or caused to be signed) this Agreement, on November          , 2021.




Attest:                                                             Northwest Bancshares, Inc.




                                                                        By:                                                  
Secretary                                                         Title:                                                  






Attest:                                                             Northwest Bank




                                                                        By:                                                  
Secretary                                                         Title:                                                  






Attest:                                                             Executive




                                                                        By:                                                  
Secretary                                                         Title:
#### Travis CUNNINGHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D10-172.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 24, 2010.

Travis Cunningham, Arcadia, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

*321PER CURIAM.

*Affirmed. See Licata v. State,*788 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

WARNER, POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 815 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to adjust certain limits on the 

guaranteed amount of a home loan under the home loan program of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2017 

Mr. ZELDIN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to adjust certain 

limits on the guaranteed amount of a home loan under 

the home loan program of the Department of Veterans 

Affairs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AMOUNT OF LOAN GUARANTEED UNDER HOME 

4 LOAN PROGRAM OF DEPARTMENT OF VET5 ERANS AFFAIRS. 

6 (a) ADJUSTMENT OF LOAN LIMIT.—Section 

7 3703(a)(1) of title 38, United States Code, is amended— 

8 (1) in subparagraph (A)(i)(IV)— 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 815 IH

1 (A) by striking ‘‘the lesser of’’; and 

2 (B) by striking ‘‘or 25 percent of the 

3 loan’’; and 

4 (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking ‘‘Freddie 

5 Mac’’ and all that follows through the period and in6 serting ‘‘amount of the loan.’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

8 this section shall apply with respect to a loan guaranteed 

9 under section 3710 of title 38, United States Code, on 

10 or after the date that is 30 days after the date of the 

11 enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS