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

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Webster Preferred Capital Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



|(a) | the Form 10-Q Report of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

August 6, 2008



/s/ James C. SmithJames C. SmithPresident(Principal Executive Officer)


Pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission Release 33-8238, dated June 5, 2003, this certification
is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended or incorporated by reference in any registration statement of the Company filed under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

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.
#### Templeton and Wife *v.*Clary.

After several continuances of a cause commenced by a feme sole, but previous', ly to any other plea, the defendant pleaded in abatement, that the plaintifi^, pending the writ, viz. on, &c., had married; and that her husband was still living. The plea was verified by affidavit; and the day on which'the coverture was averred to have taken place, was subsequent to the last continuance.

*Ideld,*that the plea could not bo rejected on motion, for not expressly alleging the coverture to have taken place *puis darrein continuance.*Such an objection for uncertainty, if good, should be made on demurrer.

APPEAL from the *Fayette*Circuit Court. — Case by *L. Clary,*a feme sole, against *Templeton*and wife, for slanderous words spoken by the wife concerning the plaintiff. The venue had been changed from *Franklin*county to *Fayette.*

Blackford, J.

This was an action by a feme sole. After several continuances, the defendants below pleaded the general issue, upon which a verdict and judgment were given for the *289plaintiff. That judgment was afterwards reversed upon a Writ *•of*error, and the proceedings subsequent to the plea inclusive, were set aside. At the first opportunity after the cause was remanded, the defendants pleaded in abatement, that the plaintiff, pending the writ, viz. on the 23d of *July,*1818, had married, and that her husband was still living. This plea, verified by affidavit, was, upon motion, set aside by the Circuit Court. Judgment was afterwards entered by default, damages were assessed, and a final judgment was rendered for the plaintiff.

*Caswell,*for the appellants.

*Test,*for the appellee.

The question for our consideration is, was the Court correct in rejecting the plea upon motion? It is contended by the appellee that the plea, being offered after a general imparlance, could not be received for want of the words *puis darrein*continuance. The appellants argue, that, before issue joined, the coverture might be pleaded *pending the writ;*or if not, still, the day of the coverture as stated in the plea being subsequent to the last continuance, as was apparent to the Court from the previous proceedings, they contend that the motion to reject the plea should have been overruled. We give no opinion at present as to the sufficiency of this plea. The objection urged against it for uncertainty, whether well founded or otherwise, could only have been brought before the Circuit Court for decision by means of a demurrer. The motion to reject the plea was irregular, and should have been overruled by the Court below.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed, and, except the change of venue, the proceedings subsequent to the motion t® reject the plea are set aside, with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Stacy Holtz","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/stacy-a-holtznasa-gov\/","title":"STS-73","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"3KZO2P5Zgs\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-73\/\">STS-73<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-73\/embed\/#?secret=3KZO2P5Zgs\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-73” — NASA\" data-secret=\"3KZO2P5Zgs\" 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:\/\/images-assets.nasa.gov\/image\/9512534\/9512534~large.jpg?w=600&h=1535&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1535}
#### M’Cormick *v.*Maxwell.

A plea to the jurisdiction of a justice in assumpsit was not sworn to; but the plaintiff went to trial on it before the justice and on appeal in the Circuit Court, without mentioning the defect. *Held,*that the objection was waived.

The process in such case need not be answered, if not issued in the township where the defendant lives, or where the cause of action accrued, or where the process was served, unless there be no competent justice in such township.

The want of jurisdiction, in such ease, may be proved under the general issue.

Wednesday, *November*30.

ERROR to the *Fountain*Circuit Court.

Dewey, J.

This was an action of assumpsit commenced before a justice of the peace. The defendant in the original suit, *M’Cortnick,*pleaded to the jurisdiction of the justice without verifying his plea by oath. No objection, however, was made to the plea on that account. The justice rendered judgment against him, and he appealed to the Circuit Court, *169The parties appeared there, and the defendant, on the calling of the cause for trial, proceeded to prove the facts the justice of jurisdiction, without any exception being taken to the plea for the want of an oath of verification. He proved, according to the allegations in his plea, that the justice who issued the process and tried the cause, resided in-a township different from that in which the defendant lived, or the cause of action accrued, or the process was served, and that a competent justice resided in that township; and having made this proof, he moved the Court to dismiss the action. This motion was overruled, and the Court proceeded to hear the cause upon its merits, and gave judgment for the plaintiff;

A. *S. White,*for the plaintiff.

I. *Naylor,*for the defendant.

It is clear from these facts, that the justice of the peace had no jurisdiction, and that the Circuit-Court should have sustained the motion to dismiss, provided the evidence was properly admitted. That it was correctly admitted there can be no doubt. No objection was made to its admission; nor could such an objection have been sustained. The plea to the jurisdiction of the justice, not having been questioned either before *him or in the Circuit Court, for the*want of an oath of its truth, became a good plea, and the defendant below had a right to sustain it by proof. *Hagar*v. Mounts, 3 Blackf. Rep, 57, 261. This Court has also decided at this term, in the case of *Thomas*v. *Winters,*that in inferior Courts of limited and special jurisdiction, matter showing a want of jurisdiction is admissible in evidence under the general issue (1).

*Per*Curiam.

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c,

(1)

 Ante, p. 161,
#### John Brown *v.*E. H. Farnler.

Pleading — Burden of Proof — Avoidance.

A defendant sought to avoid a bond, on the grounds that the plaintiff procured his signature, to the power of attorney, by deceiving him as to its nature and object. Held, that this issue devolved oH'the defendant the burden of proving the facts thus alleged.

APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.

January 16, 1869.

*Speed, Pirtle & Caruth, Riley, for appellant.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin:

The defense of the appellant admits that E. M. Farnler signed the name of the appellant to his bond as guardian of his infant son under a paper purporting to be a power of attorney authorizing him to do so, which was attested and proved by the witness Ruffner, but the appellant sought to avoid the bond on the alleged ground that Farnler fraudulently procured his signature to the power of attorney by deceiving him as to the nature of the paper and its object, and effect, when it was signed. This issue devolved on the defendant the burden of proving the facts alleged in avoidance of the bond.

It seems to us that the testimony of Ruffner and others tending to sustain the defense is neutralized by that of Farnler, corroborated as he is in a great measure by Slayed and that the judgment of the chancellor was authorized.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Strategic Communications Manager Isidro Reyna","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"5KxGAEsApF\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/jsc2023e051137\/\">Strategic Communications Manager Isidro Reyna<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/jsc2023e051137\/embed\/#?secret=5KxGAEsApF\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Strategic Communications Manager Isidro Reyna” — NASA\" data-secret=\"5KxGAEsApF\" 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\/2023\/09\/jsc2023e051137.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":411}
### **Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of EFC Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report),Barrett J. O’Connor, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Eric J.Wedeen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of theirknowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and forthe period covered by the Report.

 

 
|   | By:                       | /s/ Barrett  J. O’Connor |   |
|--------|---------------------------|-------------------------------|--------|
|   | Barrett J.  O’Connor |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer  |
|   | August 12,  2005     |
|   |                      |
|   | By:                       | /s/ Eric J.  Wedeen           |   |
|   | Eric J.  Wedeen           |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer  |
|   | August 12,  2005     |
|        |                           |                               |        |  |

 

----
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 12, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00154

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF G.N.H., A CHILD,

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017PA00642 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge P residing



### O R D E R

Appellant appeals the trial court’s termination of his parental rights. Appellant’s court

appointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. We have held that in parental

- termination appeals, a procedure akin to Anders is necessary to best protect the statutory right to counsel on appeal, to provide a procedural mechanism for counsel to fulfill his ethical obligations, to assist the court in deciding appeals, and to provide consistent procedures for all indigent litigants. See In re R.R. , No. 04

- 03

- 00096

- CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at *4 (Tex. App.

— San Ant onio 2003, no pet.). In compliance with the procedure set out in
Anders , appellant’s attorney has stated that he sent a letter to appellant, which explained his right to review the record and file a pro se brief. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Cr im. App. 2014); In re R.R. , 2003 WL 21157944, at *4. In the letter to appellant, counsel stated that he had enclosed copies of the brief and motion to withdraw. See Kelly , 436 S.W.3d at 313; In re R.R.

, 2003 WL 21157944, at *4.

Counsel’s letter also advi sed appellant that if he wishes to review the appellate record, he must file a motion in this court within ten days of receiving counsel’s letter. Counsel also enclosed a form motion for this purpose. See Kelly , 436 S.W.3d at 313; In re R.R. , 2003 WL
21157 944, at *4.

If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we ORDER that he do so on or before July 2,
2018 . If appellant files a pro se brief, appellee may file a responsive brief no later than twenty days after the d ate appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court. We ORDER the motion to withdraw, filed by appellant’s counsel, to be HELD IN ABEYANCE pending further order of
the court._________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 12th day of June, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN RE: BARD IVC FILTERS No. MDL-15-02641-PHX-DGC 

PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION 

This Document Relates to: 

Michael Person v. C.R. Bard, Inc., et al. ORDER 

CV17-2679-PHX DGC 

______________________________ 

 Pending before the Court is the parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice 

of Plaintiff as to case No. CV17-2679 PHX DGC. Doc. 8191. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECLARED that all claims 

of Plaintiff, Michael Person, against Defendants, C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc. in MDL Case No. MDL 15-2641-PHX DGC (Civil Action No. CV17-

2679-PHX DGC) are dismissed in their entirety without prejudice. Nothing herein is 

with prejudice to, or otherwise affects, diminishes or defeats Plaintiff’s claims asserted in 

Civil Action No. CV16-2559-PHX DGC. Each party shall bear its own costs. 

 Dated this 30th day of October, 2017. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8475 Filed 10/31/17 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002In connection with the Quarterly Report of PSB Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, herebycertifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and 2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operation of the Company.       /s/ Anthony DiSandro,         President and Chief Executive Officer         /s/ John Carrozza,         Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer         Dated: August 14, 2006  
28
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed

January 2 4 , 2022.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 22

- 00033

- CV

IN RE JUSTIN SOLIZ , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 310th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2020

- 17445



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
On Friday, January 21, 2022, relator Justin Soliz filed a petition for writ of
mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Cour t to compel the Honorable Charles Collins, associate judge of the 310th District Court of Harris County, to vacate the
trial cou rt ’ s “ order on petitioner ’s motion to overru le objections and to compel2

discovery
, ” signed on January 19, 2022, which overruled relator ’s assertion of a Fifth Amendment privilege to the real party in interest ’ s r equest for p roduction #1

- #5 and ordered r elator to pay the real party in interest ’ s attorney’s fees

. Relator has not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief.
Ac cordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Jewell, Hassan, and Poissant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

ALETA T. FLOYD,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. R. BARD INC., 

Defendant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC 

Civil Action No. CV-17-04600-PHX-DGC 

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS 

To: Murphy Law Firm LLC 

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff) 

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you. 

I, or the entities I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case. 

I understand that I, or the entities I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service. 

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 12/13/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entities I represent. 

Date: December 21, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party 

C. R. Bard, Inc. 

Printed name of party waiving service 

of summons 

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599) 

Printed Name 

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP 

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363 

Address 

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com 

E-mail Address 

(404) 322-6155 

Telephone number 

 

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9407 Filed 12/21/17 Page 1 of 1