alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 12.1  Certification  I, Randy Woelfel, certify that:  1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of NOVA Chemicals Corporation;  2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.The companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for thecompany and have:  a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b)Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  c)Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d)Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and  5.The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting.   Date: March 9, 2011
/s/ Randy WoelfelRandy WoelfelChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 32.1

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 Quarterly Report of Imagin Molecular Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Corey Conn, as Chief Executive Officer hereby certifies, 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), as applicable 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 Company.

|                       |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: August 17, 2006 |  | /s/ Corey Conn         
|                       |  | Corey Conn             
|                       |  | Chief Executive Officer

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

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7734

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMIE ALEXANDER CHRISTMAS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CR-93-17, CA-96-357-R)

Submitted: September 29, 1998 Decided: October 23, 1998

Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jamie Alexander Christmas, Appellant Pro Se. Julie C. Dudley,

Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A.§ 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Christmas, Nos. CR-93-17; CA-96-357-R (W.D.

Va. June 4, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.3

Exhibit 32.3 Section 906 Certification of Chief Executive Officer

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 (the Form 10-Q) of Eastern Virginia Bankshares, Inc. (the
Company), I, Joe A. Shearin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| |  |  | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Company as of and
for the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                         |  |  |  |       |  |                |  | 
|--- |  | ----------------------- |  |  |  | ----- |  | -------------- |  | 
|By: |  | /s/ Joe A. Shearin      |  |  |  | Date: |  | August 8, 2007 |  | 
|    |  | Joe A. Shearin          |  |  |  |       |  |                |  | 
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  |       |  |                |  |
{"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":"Points of Contact and FAQs for In Space Production Applications","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"N2zZngNxN3\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/station\/points-of-contact-and-faqs\/\">Points of Contact and FAQs for In Space Production Applications<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/station\/points-of-contact-and-faqs\/embed\/#?secret=N2zZngNxN3\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Points of Contact and FAQs for In Space Production Applications” — NASA\" data-secret=\"N2zZngNxN3\" 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\/03\/iss064e033237-0.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":337}
- 1 - 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Walter Dolan, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

World Wide Stone Corporation, Inc., a Nevada 

corporation; Frank Cunningham and Jane Doe 

Cunningham, husband and wife; John Heck and 

Jane Doe Heck, husband and wife; Joel Allred 

and Jane Doe Allred, husband and wife 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. CV-15-02269-PHX-DMF 

ORDER 

This Court has before it the parties’ joint motion for approval of settlement agreement 

and order for dismissal of all claims with prejudice (Doc. 38). The parties seek court approval 

because the case involves alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 

U.S.C. 201-219. The parties do so because, based upon Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United 

States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1353-54 (11th Cir. 1982), they assert that FLSA claims may not be 

settled without approval of the Department of Labor or the district court. This FSLA settlement 

was reached in the context of a lawsuit, in which all parties were represented by counsel, the 

Court has reviewed the settlement agreement, and the Court finds that the settlement agreement 

fairly and reasonably resolves the parties’ dispute. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED approving the parties’ settlement agreement and, pursuant 

to the settlement agreement, dismissing this matter with prejudice, with the parties to bear fees 

Case 2:15-cv-02269-DMF Document 39 Filed 10/17/16 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

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

and costs as set forth in the parties’ settlement agreement. 

 Dated this 17th day of October, 2016. 

Honorable Deborah M. Fine

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:15-cv-02269-DMF Document 39 Filed 10/17/16 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

In
connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ferrellgas Partners, L.P.
(the Partnership) for the year ended July 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below,
hereby 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), as
          applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
          Exchange Act); and

2.                     The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material           respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership           at the
dates and for the periods indicated within the Report.

The
foregoing certification is made solely for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and is subject to the
knowledge and willfulness qualifications contained in 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350(c).

This
certification is being furnished to the SEC and is not to be deemed filed with
the SEC for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the
liabilities of Section 18. In addition, this certification is not to be incorporated by
reference into any registration statement of the Partnership or other filing of the
Partnership made pursuant to the Exchange Act or Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
unless specifically identified as being incorporated therein by reference.

Dated: October 13, 2004

| |                                                                                                                        
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ James E. Ferrell                                                                                                   
| | James E. Ferrell
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Ferrellgas,
Inc., the Partnership's general partner
| | /s/ Kevin T. Kelly                                                                                                     
| | Kevin T. Kelly
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Ferrellgas,
Inc., the Partnership's general partner

*As required by 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, a signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Partnership.
1

HLD

- 169 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11

- 1816

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v.

MARK C. WEST,

Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Criminal No. No. 05

- cr

- 00366

- 001)

District Judge: Honorable J. Curtis Joyner

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action

Pursua nt to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

May 31, 2011

Before: Mc KEE, Chief Judge , ALDISERT and WEIS, Circuit Judges

Opinion filed June 30, 2011

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM.

Mark C. West pleaded guilty to mail and insurance fraud. In January 2008,

the District Court sentenced him to 60 months in prison. West appealed. We granted the

Government’s subsequent motion to enforce West’s appellate waiver and to summarily2

affirm t he District Court’s judgment.

West then filed a pro se motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The

Government responded by moving to dismiss the motion pursuant to the appellate waiver

and by arguing that the claims were without merit. The District Cour t appointed counsel

for West from the Federal Courts Division of the Defender Association. In November

2010, after a hearing at which West and his counsel were present, the District Court

permitted West to withdraw his § 2255 motion.

In March 2011, West wrote a letter to the District Court. He asked the

District Court to appoint counsel, other than someone from the Defender Association, to

represent him in an attempt to be resentenced to home confinement because of his

medical ailments (which he listed for the District Court) and his age (78 years old). The

District Court denied his motion in a short order, adding in a footnote that West did not

show why counsel other than a Federal Defender is warranted.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 1291. See Isidor Paiewonsky

Assocs., Inc. v. Sharp Properties, Inc. , 998 F.2d 145, 149

- 51 (3d Cir. 1993) . We review

for abuse of discretion an order denying the appointment of counsel. See United States v.

Nichols , 30 F.3d 35, 36 (5th Cir. 1994).

Because no substantial issue is presented on appeal, we will summarily

affirm the District Court’s order. See Local Rule 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6 . The District Court

did not abuse its discretion in denying West counsel. It is unclear under what authority

Wes t could win a reduction or change in his sentence based on the reasons he gave in his3

letter motion. It is also unclear why counsel other than someone from the Federal

Defender Association would be necessary if counsel were to be appointed. The District

Court committed no error.
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, that to his knowledge on the date hereof:



|(a) | the Form 10-Q Report of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 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 9, 2010

/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 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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Allen Harrison,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04455-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Lopez McHugh LLP - Newport Beach, CA

(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 12/4/2017, 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 entity I represent.

Date: December 8, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties 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 9253 Filed 12/11/17 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 9253 Filed 12/11/17 Page 2 of 2
#### Stewart *v.*The State.

In error.

*Thursday, December 1.*

AN indictment against a constable under the 48th section of the act relative to crimes and punishments, R. C. 1831, p. 190, for official negligence in not executing a state’s warrant, need not contain an averment that the justice who issued the warrant had legal authority to do so; nor an allegation, that previously to the issuing of the warrant, a complaint on oath was made to the justice charging the person to be arrested

with the commission of a crime; nor that a crime was committed in the view of the justice.

It is sufficient if the indictment, in such case, set out a warrant legal upon its face.

The state is a “ person ” within the meaning of the above-named section of the statute; and an averment, therefore, that the offence was to the injury of the state is sufficient.

There is not a fatal variance between the name *Beckwith*in a warrant named in an indictment, and *Beckworth*in that produced on the trial.