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


                       LIONS PETROLEUM INC.

                 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned executive officers of Lions Petroleum Inc. certify pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

    a.  the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Lions Petroleum Inc. for the
        quarter ended December 31, 2004, fully complies with the requirements
        of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

    b.  the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
        material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
        of Lions Petroleum Inc.



                                  /s/ Dale M. Paulson
Date: April 4, 2005               ____________________________________
                                  Dale M. Paulson
                                  Principal Executive Officer


                                  /s/ Gordon L. Wiltse
Date: April 4, 2005               ____________________________________
                                  Gordon L. Wiltse
                                  Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.1


      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


          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 Quarterly Report of Citizens Bancorp (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, William V. Humphreys, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, and Lark E. Wysham, Chief Financial Officer, each certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


/s/ William V. Humphreys
--------------------------------------
William V. Humphreys
President and Chief Executive Officer
November 12, 2002


/s/ Lark E. Wysham
--------------------------------------
Lark E. Wysham
Chief Financial Officer
November 12, 2002
#### Maria Alba JIMENEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES,* Attorney General, Respondent.

Nos. 03-72214, 03-73845.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 7, 2005.**

Decided Feb. 25, 2005.

Marc A. Karlin, Esq., Philip J. Karlin, Esq., Karlin & Karlin, APC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Laguna Niguel, Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District *811Counsel, San Francisco, CA, James A. Hunolt, Esq., M. Jocelyn Wright, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: FERNANDEZ, GRABER and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

In these consolidated petitions, Maria Alba Jimenez, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of two decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”): (1) the denial of Jimenez’s motion to reopen and issue a newly dated decision (No. 03-72214), and (2) the denial of Jimenez’s motion to reconsider the BIA’s denial of her motion to reopen (No. 03-73845). We have partial jurisdiction pursuant to former 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). *See Kalaw v. INS,*133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider or to reopen. *Cano-Merida v. INS,*311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petitions for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it determined, both in its denial of reopening and in its denial of reconsideration, that the agency properly mailed its decision to the address of record of Jimenez’s counsel of record. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996) (noting that the BIA complies with federal regulations when it mails its decision to counsel’s address of record); *see also Garcia v. INS,*222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2002) (recognizing that notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the petitioner).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s January 29, 2002 decision because petitioner did not timely petition this Court for review of that decision. *Martinez-Serrano,*94 F.3d at 1258; *see also*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).

We also lack jurisdiction to consider Jimenez’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim because she failed to raise it before the BIA. *See Grava v. Ashcroft,*205 F.3d 1177, 1182 (9th Cir.2000).

In No. 03-72214, PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

In No. 03-73845, PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

***

 xhiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Ana Guzman","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/ana-d-guzmannasa-gov\/","title":"NASA Selects Proposals to Enable Manufacturing In Space for Earth","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"zPUJX12scv\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/station\/nasa-selects-proposals-to-enable-manufacturing-in-space-for-earth\/\">NASA Selects Proposals to Enable Manufacturing In Space for Earth<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/station\/nasa-selects-proposals-to-enable-manufacturing-in-space-for-earth\/embed\/#?secret=zPUJX12scv\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Selects Proposals to Enable Manufacturing In Space for Earth” — NASA\" data-secret=\"zPUJX12scv\" 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\/2022\/04\/iss064e033239_Glover_MSG.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Brockett Wagner,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-16-00555-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Shaw Cowart, LLP

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

I understand that I, or the entity 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 3/1/2016, 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 entity I represent.

Date: March 2, 2016 /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. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 962 Filed 03/04/16 Page 1 of 2
2

“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 962 Filed 03/04/16 Page 2 of 2
#### Sarah McCall *v.*Jambs McCall’s Heirs.

Pleadings.

Admission in petition and answer.

Wills.

Deed — reservation to control estate during life.

APPEAL EROM ROCKCASTLE CIRCUIT COURT1..

June 2, 1870.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Peters :

In two answers and a cross-petition, filed in the case by appellant, she expressly and repeatedly admits that the instrument under-which appellees claim the personal estate of the late James McCall is a deed, and has not subsequently withdrawn those admissions, consequently the question as to whether the writing be a will or a deed, so elaborately discussed by appellant’s counsel, is concluded by her admissions in her pleadings.

Nor do we perceive any error in the judgment prejudical to appellant in any other particular. By the terms of the instrument, the whole of the personal estate of the grantor passed to the beneficiaries; he only reserved to himself the right to control and manage the same during his life, in the event that he should choose to do so; to improve and increase the same for the benefit of his children by his own labor and that of his servants, and to have a support out of it, and to use such part of it for religious purposes as he might think proper.

Such of the personal property included in the writings as remained in kind at the death of the grantor, and the additions made thereto by him by its use, appellees certainly are entitled to, and as it does not appear that any of the personal property left by decedent was acquired in any other way, except that which he took upon the death of his son, and as appellant got one-third of it, we do not discover that she is entitled to any more than was adjudged to her.

*592
      *Hill & Alcorn, for appellant.*

*G. O. B. McCall, for appellees.*

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5

<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                       JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                             1,291
<SECURITIES>                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                      4,775
<ALLOWANCES>                       526
<INVENTORY>                        4,773
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   12,263
<PP&E>                             118,225
<DEPRECIATION>                     42,459
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     105,463
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              22,319
<BONDS>                            144,331
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<COMMON>                           14
<OTHER-SE>                         (62,315)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       105,463
<SALES>                            75,733
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   79,537
<CGS>                              36,583
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      36,583
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   227
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 19,475
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (14,824)
<INCOME-TAX>                       (5,197)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (9,627)
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                       (9,627)
<EPS-BASIC>                      (6.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (6.16)



</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

March 3, 2020

t0224 

# Order

Clerk March 3, 2020

159337

DEBRA A. PARADISO,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 159337

COA: 340757

Oakland CC: 2016

- 155600

- NO

CITY OF ROYAL OAK,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 21, 2019

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and

we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Wigfall v

City of Detroit , 504 Mich 330 (2019).
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Three Companies to Help NASA Advance Solar Array Technology for Moon","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"oqNZJKz0YC\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/three-companies-to-help-nasa-advance-solar-array-technology-for-moon\/\">Three Companies to Help NASA Advance Solar Array Technology for Moon<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/three-companies-to-help-nasa-advance-solar-array-technology-for-moon\/embed\/#?secret=oqNZJKz0YC\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Three Companies to Help NASA Advance Solar Array Technology for Moon” — NASA\" data-secret=\"oqNZJKz0YC\" 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\/2022\/08\/surface_power_2_0.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":338}
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE 

STEVEN E. BERKHEIMER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Misc. C.A. No. ____________ 

C.A. No. 12-9023-JZL 

(Northern District of Illinois) 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING NON-PARTY OPEN TEXT CORPORATION’S 

MOTION: (1) TO QUASH SUBPOENAS FROM STEVEN E. BERKHEIMER AND (2) 

TO TRANSFER THE INSTANT MOTION TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

WHEREAS, the Court, having considered non-party Open Text Corporation’s Motion: 

(1) to Quash Subpoenas from Steven E. Berkheimer and (2) to Transfer the Instant Motion to the 

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “Motion”), and for good 

cause having been shown, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this _____ day of ___________________, 2020, that nonparty Open Text Corporation’s Motion is GRANTED insofar as the Instant Motion is transferred 

to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. 

_______________________________ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

6604021/50026 

Case: 1:20-cv-02037 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 03/03/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:6
##### 



Exhibit 99.2 ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCEPrincipal Life Income Fundings Trust 4 (the Trust) I, Nancy H. Forte, a duly elected and acting officer of Citibank, N.A. (Indenture Trustee),
do hereby certify on behalf of the Indenture Trustee, that: 1. I have reviewed and examined the performance by the Indenture Trustee of the application of
trust money collected by the Indenture Trustee pursuant to Section 5.02 and, if applicable, Section
6.06 of the Indenture pursuant to which the Trusts notes were issued during the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2004 (the Relevant Year); and 2. Based upon my review and examination described in 1 above, and except as provided in the
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm on Compliance, dated March 15, 2005,
prepared by the Ernst & Young LLP substantially in accordance with Section 4.05 of the Expense and
Indemnity Agreement, to the best of my knowledge, the application of trust money collected by the
Indenture Trustee pursuant to Section 5.02 and, if applicable, Section 6.06 of the Indenture was
performed in accordance with the terms of the Indenture throughout the Relevant Year. CITIBANK, N.A., as Indenture Trustee By:
    
    /s/ Nancy H. ForteName: Nancy H. ForteTitle: Assistant Vice PresidentDate:
    
    March 29, 2005
#### Wm. Cates *v.*E. J. Green *&*Others.

Equitable Lien — Notice.

Where one holds an equitable lien on property, no notice is necessary of same, to a purchaser of a subsequent and subordinate equity.

ARREAR EROM GRAET CIRCUIT COURT.

September 13, 1870.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Robertson :

As the record furnishes no reason to doubt that Plunket’s legal title is indisputable, the conveyance made by him *pendente lite*should be deemed a sufficient assurance of title to Cates. Green *496does not appear to have acted in buying tbe Equity, otherwise than as Cate’s agent, and tbe indorsement on tbe memorial of bis contract to procure an assignment of tbe title bond to Cates shows that Cates accepted tbe assignment as made in fulfillment of Green’s undertaking. It sufficiently appears that Hudson, as assignee of Plunket bolds an equitable lien on tbe title; and not only was there no need of notice thereof to Oates when be bought a subsequent and subordinate equity, but be bad presumed actual notice when be accepted tbe assignment.

Drane, Collins, *for appellant.*

*McManama, for appellee.*

But, as Franks seems to owe and to have promised Cates to; pay tbe Hudson note, tbe court ought, by judicial order, to have required him to pay that debt to Hudson, or otherwise procure a release of Hudson’s lien, before decreeing tbe sale of tbe land for enforcing tbe lien against Oates, which ought to be tbe last resort. For this cause tbe judgment for sale is reversed and tbe cause remanded for further proceedings for effectuating tbe end just indicated in tbe mode suggested or, if that fail, for a judgment for tbe amount of tbe lien in favor of Cates against Franks on tbe prayer for general relief. As Green has not denied that be represented tbe title as unimcumbered, be might be liable for the costs of tbe litigation and may possibly be liable to Oates for indemnity against tbe incumbrance, if be should fail in otherwise obtaining it, and for that purpose, tbe pleading, as between them, may be amended, and therefore tbe judgment in Green’s favor is also reversed.