alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Kelli Mars","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/kelli-l-marsnasa-gov\/","title":"50 Years Ago: Apollo 10 Passes Countdown Demonstration Test","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"uw4t9uC3xs\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/50-years-ago-apollo-10-passes-countdown-demonstration-test\/\">50 Years Ago: Apollo 10 Passes Countdown Demonstration Test<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/50-years-ago-apollo-10-passes-countdown-demonstration-test\/embed\/#?secret=uw4t9uC3xs\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“50 Years Ago: Apollo 10 Passes Countdown Demonstration Test” — NASA\" data-secret=\"uw4t9uC3xs\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/apollo_10_crew_photo_s69-32613.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":449}
Exhibit 32

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned hereby certifies that,
to his knowledge, (i) the Form 10-QSB filed by Great Pee Dee Bancorp, Inc. (the Issuer) for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in that report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer on the dates and for the periods presented therein.



|                  |  |                             |  |                        
|----------------- |  | --------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                  |  | GREAT PEE DEE BANCORP, INC.
|                  |  |                            
|Date: May 9, 2006 |  | By:                         |  | /s/ John S. Long       
|                  |  |                             |  | John S. Long           
|                  |  |                             |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                  |  |                            
|Date: May 9, 2006 |  | By:                         |  | /s/ John M. Digby      
|                  |  |                             |  | John M. Digby          
|                  |  |                             |  | Chief Financial Officer

The purpose of this statement is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United
States Code, as amended by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to Great Pee Dee Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by Great Pee Dee Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-15-00523-CR

Daniel ORTEGA,

Appellant

v.

The State 

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 11, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 436539

The Honorable Tommy Stolhandske, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 30, 2015

DISMISSED

On August 31, 2015, this court issued an order stating this appeal would be dismissed 

pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification that shows appellant has the 

right of appeal was made part of the appellate record within thirty days. See TEX. R. APP. P.

25.2(d), 37.1; see also Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174, 175-76 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, 

order). Appellant did not file an amended certification or otherwise respond. The clerk’s record 

does not contain a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal. To the contrary, 

the trial court certification in the record states “this criminal case is a plea-bargain case, and the 
04-15-00523-CR

- 2 -

defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record shows the punishment assessed did not

exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. Therefore, 

the clerk’s record supports the trial court’s certification that defendant has no right of appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).

 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
EXHIBIT 32.1


                       CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




William F. Garrett, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Delta Mills,
Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that to the best of his knowledge:

     1.   The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 2, 2005
          of the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
          section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act
          of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

     2.   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 indicated.

The foregoing certification is made solely for the purpose of complying with the
requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.
1350) and may not be relied upon by anyone for any other purpose. The
undersigned expressly disclaims any undertaking to update such certification
except as required by law.






Date    May 17, 2005                      By: /s/ William F. Garrett
      -------------------------          ------------------------------------
                                          William F. Garrett
                                          President & Chief Executive Officer



A signed copy of this written statement required by section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Ray Baxter, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Synchrony Bank, 

Defendant.

No. CV-15-01680-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 The Court has been advised that this case has settled (Doc. 22). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter will, without further Order of 

this Court, be dismissed with prejudice within 60 days of the date of this Order unless a 

stipulation to dismiss is filed prior to the dismissal date. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating any pending hearings. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying all pending motions as moot. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate this 

matter on May 2, 2016 without further leave of Court. 

 Dated this 1st day of March, 2016. 

Honorable G. Murray Snow

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-01680-GMS Document 23 Filed 03/01/16 Page 1 of 1
* Honorable Thomas N. O'Neill, Jr., Senior U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

** We do not address cases in which the property taken by the government is something other than money, but we do not mean to hint that the law would necessarily be different if some other kind of property were involved. United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.

No. 94-4948. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. Willie James WATKINS, Defendant-Appellant. Aug. 27, 1997. Appeal from the United States Di strict Court for the Southern Di strict of Florida. (No. 92-288-CRSJM), Stanley J. Marcus, Judge. Before TJOFLAT and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, and O'NEILL * , Senior District Judge.
PER CURIAM: Willie Watkins appeals the denial of his motion under Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(e) for return of property ($2,471.91) seized by federal officers at the time of his arrest on drug charges. The money
was not used as evidence at Watkins's criminal tria l, in which he was convicted. In the Rule 41(e) proceedings, the government represented to the district court that the money had been administratively forfeited by the Drug Enforcement Administration. When property is retained pursuant to civil fo rfeiture, instead of for use as evidence, a Rule 41(e) motion is not available. United States v. Castro, 883 F.2d 1018, 1019 (11th Cir.1989). When the government, in its written response to a Rule 41(e) motion, admits its position is that, by forfeiture, the movant has already permanently lost his right to the pertinent property, the government's judicial admission is enough to deprive the court of the authority to grant the Rule 41(e) motion. Put differently, when the government sa ys in court that the property (at least, where it is money—a fungible item ** ) has been, in fact, forfeited to it (that is, has been taken in fact ), the issue for adjudication then becomes whether the government has acted wrongfully in taking the2 property. We do not understand Watkins to have argued to the district court or to us that his money had not, in fact, been taken, but understand him to say it was taken without due process. Equitable relief beyond Rule 41(e), if it was asked for in district court, was unavailable. Equitable jurisdiction to review a forfeiture is extremely limited and does not lie where the claimant has an adequate remedy at law. See, e.g., In re $67,470.00, 901 F.2d 1540, 1544-45 (11th Cir.1990). Watkins could seek money damages through a lawsuit—see 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) (the Tucker Act)—against the United States if the governmenthas wrongfully converted his property; for example, if appropriate administrative procedures were not followed. The dismissal of the Rule 41(e) motion, in itself, does not adjudicate the lawfulness of the forfeiture.
The district court's denial of Mr. Watkins's motion is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Heather Deiss","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/heather-s-deissnasa-gov\/","title":"STS-96","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"6aBcYt6geX\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/sts-96\/\">STS-96<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/sts-96\/embed\/#?secret=6aBcYt6geX\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-96” — NASA\" data-secret=\"6aBcYt6geX\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
Case 2:15-cr-01090-DGC Document 4 Filed 08/12/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-cr-01090-DGC Document 4 Filed 08/12/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-cr-01090-DGC Document 4 Filed 08/12/15 Page 3 of 3
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 on Form 10-KSB (the "Report") of Akid
Corporation  (the   "registrant")  for  the  year  ended  April  30,  2003,  the
undersigned  James  B.  Wiegand,  the  Chief  Executive  Officer  and the  Chief
Financial  Officer of the  registrant,  hereby  certifies  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 the undersigned's knowledge and belief:

     (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
registrant.

         Date:  June 23, 2003               By:   /s/ James B. Wiegand
                                                  ----------------------------
                                                  James B. Wiegand,
                                                  Chief Executive Officer and
                                                  Chief Financial Officer



                                    * * * * *


     A signed original of the 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.
Exhibit 32.1

Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of Central European Distribution Corporation (the Company), hereby
certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



| | (a) | the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/ WILLIAM V. CAREYWilliam V. Carey Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer May 10, 2006
|   | **Exhibit 21** |
|--------|----------------|

 

 

**Subsidiaries**

 

The following table sets forth the information on our subsidiaries that is required to be reported under Item 601 of the SEC’s Regulation S-K.

 

 

|  

**Name**   |   | **State of Incorporation****or Organization** |   | **Name Under Which Business is Conducted** |
|--------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
| ESI Service Corp.  |   | Delaware                                      |   | ESI Service Corp.                          |
| ESI Maryland Corp. |   | Maryland                                      |   | ITT Technical Institute                    |
Document

Exhibit 10.1

April 15,  2021                    
James P. Keane
901 44th St., SE
Grand Rapids, MI  49508


Dear Jim,


You have notified the Board of Directors of your intention to retire from Steelcase Inc. effective January 7, 2022.  I am pleased to offer you the position of Vice Chair effective October 4, 2021, with responsibility for assisting the incoming CEO with the transition of relationships with external groups, engagement with shareholders and other assignments as requested by me or the Board.  In this position you’ll report directly to me, and you will remain an employee of Steelcase Inc.  Nothing herein is intended to alter the at-will employment relationship between you and Steelcase. 


This letter is to confirm, in writing, your compensation package for this new position beginning October 4, 2021.


Base Salary  
•Annual salary will continue at $1,071,000 ($41,192.31 bi-weekly).
Annual Incentive Compensation
•You will continue to participate in the Steelcase Inc. Management Incentive Plan (MIP).
•Your annual bonus target for FY22 will remain at 120% of base salary.
Long-term Incentive Compensation
•You will not receive any further long-term incentive awards.
•Your existing long-term incentive awards will remain in place.
Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan
•You will continue to participate in the Steelcase Inc. Executive Supplemental Retirement Plan.
Stock Ownership Guidelines
•You will not be subject to ownership guidelines.
Executive Severance Plan
•You will no longer be a participant in the Steelcase Inc. Executive Severance Plan.


Jim, I’m looking forward to working with you in this new role.  Please let me know if you have any questions.


Sincerely,


/s/ Robert C. Pew III


Robert C. Pew III
Chair of the Board of Directors
Steelcase Inc.


I accept and agree to the terms offered in this letter.




			
	/s/ James P. Keane                    4/16/21


James P. Keane                                       Date
#### Merriman *v.*Maple.

The assignee of a promissory note, assigned before it was due, delayed thirty days after* it became due before he sued the maker. Held, that the indorser was not liable, in such a case, for the maker’s default, unless the indorsee could show that an earlier1 proceeding was impracticable, or would have been unavailing.

ERROR to the *Carroll*Circuit Court.

*Saturday, November*27,

Scott, J.

Assumpsit by the assignee of a sealed note against the- assignor. Plea, non-assumpsit; issue; and judgment for the plaintiff. Two other pleas were rejected on demurrer. We learn from the record, that the note was made by *Skinner,*payable to *Merriman*twelve months after date, and assigned by *Merriman*to *Maple*before it became due. The note became due on the eighth of *August,*1821. On the tenth of *September*following, *Maple*sued out of the office of the *Franklin*Circuit Court a writ of capias ad respondendum against *Skinner,*returnable on the first Monday of *October,*which writ was returned *non est inventus.*On the sixth of October, an alias capias *351issued returnable on the first Monday of March, 1822, which was returned executed, and judgment was rendered at that term for the plaintiff. ■ Several executions were issued on the judgment and returned *nulla bona.*Maple, the assignee, then brought this suit and obtained judgment.

*Wick,*for the plaintiff

*■Fletcher*and *-Merrill,*for the defendant.

The complaint is, that due diligence was not used by *Maple*to obtain the money from *Skinner.*The liability of the assignor depends on the fact, that the assignee* after having used due diligence, has failed to obtain the money of the maker of the note. Had the assignee, notwithstanding the delay, succeeded in bringing *Skinner*into Court at the first term after 'the note became due, the assignor would have had no ground of complaint; but as the assignor had parted with the note, and had no more control over it, he had a right to require evidence that the’ assignee had -commenced suit in due time, and had used all the means in his power to obtain judgment at the first term; or that he should show some reason why an earlier proceeding was impracticable, or, if practicable, that it would hafe been unavailing. A delay of upwards of thirty days, without any reason to justify or excuse it, is not, in our opinion, consistent with that due diligence which the law requires in such cases. If a man choose to sleep on hiss rights, he must do so at his own risk, and not at the hazard of his neighbour;

*Per*Curiam.

The judgment is reversed with costs.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 50397 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Michael Armstead,**
Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:19

- CR

- 192

- 5

Before **Southwick, Oldham,** and **Wilson,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  *
The attorney appointed to represent Michael Armstead has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Armstead has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 4, 2022

Lyle W. Cay ce Clerk Case: 21-50397 Document: 00516154100 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/04/2022No. 21

- 50397

2 relevant portions of the record reflected therein , as well as Armstead ’s
response . We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R** 

**.** 42. 2. Case: 21-50397 Document: 00516154100 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/04/2022