alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Annual Report of Timberline Resources Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended September 30, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven A. Osterberg, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 results of operations of the Company.





|                       |                                                                                                                                                
|---------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: January 25, 2017 | By:   /s/ Steven A. Osterberg
_____________________________
Steven A. Osterberg
President & Chief Executive Officer
Principal Executive Officer







The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.





















1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

BRENT S. MEISNER, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-30102 

D.C. No. 

3:14-cr-05475-RBL-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 29, 2018**

Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Brent Meisner appeals from his bench trial conviction and eighteen-month 

sentence for one count of knowingly filing a materially false tax return, in violation 

of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we 

affirm.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

SEP 4 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

The evidence is sufficient to support Meisner’s conviction because, viewing 

the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact 

could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Meisner knowingly made a false statement 

on his 2009 tax return. Although Meisner argues his testimony supported a goodfaith defense, he does not challenge the district court’s adverse credibility finding 

against him. See United States v. Overton, 573 F.3d 679, 689 n.8 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(amended opinion) (finding “no reason to set aside” the district court’s credibility 

determination and credit the defendant’s trial testimony). Moreover, sufficient 

evidence belies any asserted good-faith misunderstanding. Meisner was a 

sophisticated businessperson who carefully tracked income and expenses on 

multiple rental properties for tax purposes. Additionally, his former employer

explained to Meisner that his termination stemmed from failing to reimburse the 

company for substantial noneconomic income, thus placing Meisner on notice that 

he received noneconomic income. 

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.2**

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of FelCor Lodging Limited Partnership (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the three and six months ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, in the capacity as indicated below and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended, and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| August 8, 2007 | /s/Andrew J. Welch |  
 
Andrew J. Welch

 
 
Chief Financial Officer of FelCor Lodging

 
Trust Incorporated, as general partner of

 
FelCor Lodging Limited Partnership

 

 

  |
|----------------|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
ILND 450 (Rev. 04/29/2016) Judgment in a Civil Action

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Plaintiff(s), 

v. 

Defendant(s). 

Case No.

Judge 

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

Judgment is hereby entered (check appropriate box):

in favor of plaintiff(s) 

and against defendant(s)

in the amount of $ 

which includes pre–judgment interest. 

 does not include pre–judgment interest.

Post-judgment interest accrues on that amount at the rate provided by law from the date of this judgment. 

Plaintiff(s) shall recover costs from defendant(s).

in favor of defendant(s) 

and against plaintiff(s) 

Defendant(s) shall recover costs from plaintiff(s).

other: 

This action was (check one): 

tried by a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has rendered a verdict. 

tried by Judge without a jury and the above decision was reached. 

decided by Judge on a motion 

Date: Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk of Court

 , Deputy Clerk 

Case: 1:20-cv-03431 Document #: 39 Filed: 05/07/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:3074
9769.

#### Gay *v.*The State.

Decided October 14, 1918.

Accusation of assault and battery; from city court of Dublin— Judge "Flynt. April 15, 1918.

*Fred Zea,*for plaintiff in error. *S. P. New, solicitor,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

There is no merit in any of the grounds of the motion for a new trial. There. is ample evidence to support the verdict, and the judgment is *Affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Harwell, J., concur.*
9755.

#### Williams *et al. v.*Ellis *et al.*

Decided October 15, 1918.

Action on bond; from Jeff Davis' superior court—Jiidge High-smith. April 11, 1918.

*Gordon Knox,*for plaintiffs. *S. D. Dell,*for defendants.

Luke, J.

1. When the sheriff of a county is also, by the act creating a city court for the county, sheriff of the city court, his acts are as separate when acting in the different capacities as if he were two persons. Consequently, where the “deputy sheriff” levies a city court fi. fa., addressed “to all and singular the sheriffs of said State,” upon real estate, and turns the fi. fa. over to the “sheriff of the county,” and advertisement and sale of the property and deed to the purchaser are made by the sheriff of the county, and not as “sheriff of the city court,” suit will not lie against the sureties upon the bond of the ‘.‘sheriff of the city court,” when it is made to appear that the sheriff illegally converted to his own use the money realized from the sale of the property; but the sureties on the bond of the “sheriff of the county”' would be liable.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge. It was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, G. J., and Jenhms, J., concur.*
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**Section906 Certification**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OR**

**PRINCIPALFINANCIAL OFFICER**

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

 

In connection with theaccompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc. forthe quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the “Report”), I, R. Scott Stevenson,Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Fog Cutter Capital GroupInc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2) the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc.

 

This written statement isbeing furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to theReport.

 
| November 13, 2007 |                             | /s/  R. Scott Stevenson |   |
|-------------------|----------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|              |                             |
| Date              | R. Scott Stevenson               |
|              | Senior Vice President  and Chief |
|              | Financial Officer                |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by § 906 has been provided to the Company and willbe retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 213 Agreed to House (ATH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 213

 A resolution designating the majority membership on certain standing 
                        committees of the House.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 1, 1997

Mr. Pease submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 A resolution designating the majority membership on certain standing 
                        committees of the House.

    Resolved, That the following Member be, and he is hereby, elected 
to the following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: Mr. Moran of 
Kansas.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2: Certification of Principal Financial Officer pursuant to 18
U.S.C.ss.1850 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002.

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

In  connection  with the Annual  Report  of  South  Texas  Oil  Company  (the
"Company") on Form  10-KSB  for  the  year  ending December 31, 2006 as filed
with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I,  Marlene Hutcheson,  Chief  Financial Officer of  the  Company,
certify,  pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to
Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and 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 result of operations of the Company.

                         /s/ Marlene Hutcheson
                         ------------------------------------------
                         Marlene Hutcheson, Chief Financial Officer

Dated: April 17, 2007
#### ABR CORPORATION, PROSECUTOR-RESPONDENT, v. CITY OF NEWARK AND VINCENT J. MURPHY, MAYOR AND DIRECTOR OF REVENUE AND FINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWARK, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Argued February 7, 1945

Decided April 19, 1945.

Por the appellants, *Philip J. Schotland (Thomas L. Par-sonnet,*of counsel).

Por the respondents, *Arthur T. Vanderbilt*and *II. Edward Toner.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Mr. Justice Porter for the Supreme Court.

The opinion says: “Certainly Bratter had no equitable estate in the property which would justify any such assessment to be taxable. His equitable title must be vested and perfected by full performance of the contract.” In our view, the question is whether all the conditions precedent to a conveyance of the legal title have been fulfilled by the vendee. In that event, the government holds the bare naked title and a nominal interest, and the whole value is taxable to the equitable owner. Until all the conditions precedent have been performed, the lands are the property of the government and exempt from taxation by the state. This is the principle of the case of *New Brunswick*v. *United States,*276 *U. S.*547; 48 *S. Ct.*371; 72 *L. Ed.*693, reiterated in the case of *United States*v. *County of Allegheny,*322 *U. S.*174; 64 *S. Ct.*908; 88 *L. Ed.*1209. The common law doctrine of equitable conversion upon the execution of a contract for the sale of land is not applicable. Until the vendee of a contract for the sale of land owned by the government is entitled to a conveyance of the title by the performance of all conditions precedent, his mere possessory right is not taxable by the state.

*35
      *For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Cujee Justice, Parker, Bodine, IIeher, Perskje, Colie, Wells, Baeeerty, Thoaleson, JJ. 10.

*For reversal*— Xone.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Section 906 Certification**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OR**

**PRINCIPALFINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with theaccompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Fog Cutter Capital GroupInc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the “Report”), I, Andrew A.Wiederhorn, Chief Executive Officer of Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc., herebycertify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2) the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc.

 

This written statement isbeing furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to theReport.

 

 
| August 8, 2008 |   | /s/ Andrew A.  Wiederhorn |
|---------------------|--------|---------------------------|
|                |   |                      |
| Date                |   | Andrew A. Wiederhorn      |
|                |   | Chief Executive Officer   |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by § 906 has been provided to the Company and willbe retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### James D. Steele, etc., *v.*Commonwealth, etc.

Execution — Priority—Levy—Sheriff’s Failure to Endorse.

It is not essential to the validity of the levy of an executor that it shall he endorsed on the execution, and a sheriff may sell under a levy so made, to the exclusion of an execution levied at later date, notwithstanding the levy was endorsed on the latter one.

APPEAL PROM CHRISTIAN CIRCUIT COURT.

January 17, 1871.

*McPherson, for appellants.*

*Feland, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Hardin :

.Although it was not essential to the validity of the levy of Rogers execution that it should have been endorsed on the execution, and the sheriff might have sold under a levy so made and not endorsed on the returned execution, and to the exclusion of the execution of the appellees of later date than the alleged levy but prior in date to the second execution of Rogers. The levy under which the land was sold, endorsed on the last execution of Rogers dated June 14, 1867, does not purport to be, nor is it shown to have been priorily made, but whatever may have been the intention of the deputy sheriff in relation to levying the junior execution of Rogers, the levy was endorsed and dated, is clearly a levy of that execution and of that date, and ought not to have been made, as it was an execution junior in date to that of the plaintiff which was at the. time in the sheriff’s hands and to its exclusion, and the decision of the circuit court sustaining the demurrer to the answer being in accordance with this view does not seem to have been erroneous.

Therefore, no error being perceived, the judgment is *affirmed.*
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 23, 2009 

0316 

Order 

 

March 23, 2009 

137649 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137649 

 COA: 278571 

Wayne CC: 07-004275-01 

LAMONT DAUNIELLE PARIS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 18, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

*CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Granite City Food & BreweryLtd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 28,2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, James G. Gilbertson, 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 Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 
| Dated: |  November 9,  2010 | By:    | /s/  James G. Gilbertson |
|--------|------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|   |                         |   | James  G. Gilbertson     |
|   |                         |   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 947

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the

research credit and to allow greater opportunity to elect the alternative

incremental credit.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 5, 1997

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut (for herself, Mr. MATSUI, Mr. SAWYER, Mr.

HOUGHTON, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Ms. DUNN, Mr. CAMP, Mr.

SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut, Mr. ENGLISH

of Pennsylvania, Ms. MOLINARI, Mr. HERGER, Mr. WELLER, Mr. LEVIN,

Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. WATKINS, Mr. OXLEY, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr.

CAMPBELL, Mr. GEJDENSON, Mr. NEY, Mrs. SMITH of Washington, Ms.

ESHOO, Mr. FILNER, Mr. BOEHLERT, Mr. DREIER, Mr. BLUMENAUER,

Mr. KLUG, Mr. GILLMOR, Mr. FROST, Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon, Mr.

PRICE of North Carolina, Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts, Mr. SKAGGS,

Mr. EVANS, Ms. FURSE, Mr. CANNON, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. ROGAN, Mr.

PASCRELL, Mr. FARR of California, and Mr. COOK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently

extend the research credit and to allow greater opportunity to elect the alternative incremental credit.

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

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATIONS TO RESEARCH CREDIT.

4 (a) CREDIT MADE PERMANENT.—
2

•HR 947 IH

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 41 of the Internal

2 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to credit for increas3 ing research activities) is amended by striking sub4 section (h).

5 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Paragraph (1)

6 of section 45C(b) of such Code is amended by strik7 ing subparagraph (D).

8 (b) OPPORTUNITY TO ELECT ALTERNATIVE INCRE9 MENTAL CREDIT.—Subparagraph (B) of section 41(c)(4)

10 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to election)

11 is amended to read as follows:

12 ‘‘(B) ELECTION.—An election under this

13 paragraph shall apply to the taxable year for

14 which made and all succeeding taxable years

15 unless revoked with the consent of the Sec16 retary.’’

17 (c) EFFECTIVE DATES.—

18 (1) EXTENSION.—The amendments made by

19 subsection (a) shall apply to amounts paid or in20 curred after May 31, 1997.

21 (2) ELECTION.—The amendment made by sub22 section (b) shall apply to taxable years beginning

23 after June 30, 1996.

Æ
#### Anthony Dewit *v.*O. Redwiltz, etc.

Contract — Collateral Parol Agreement.

A collateral parol agreement for indulgence not entirely consistent with the writing is not enforceable against the written evidence of the contract.

APPEAL PROM MERCER CIRCUIT COURT.

April 25, 1872.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin :

It sufficiently appears from the testimony of Gaither and Allen that the erasure of the words in the mortgage, deferring the itime *160of payment, was authorized and materially agreed to by both Dewit and Redwiltz; and there is no satisfactory evidence that Redwiltz induced Dewit to agree to this by any fraudulent means: There is some evidence of a collateral parol agreement for indulgence, not entirely consistent with the writing, which is not enforceable as against ¡the written evidence of the contract. No sufficient grounds being- shown for reforming the writing. The judgment of sale was, therefore, right. And' in ithe subsequent proceedings we perceive no error or irregularity to the prejudice of the appellant for which the final judgment ought to be reversed, even if he is not estopped -by his own position on the record from complaining of the relief adjudged to Wilson upon his own theory that. Wilson bought and paid for the property for him and as his. friend' and trustee.

*Thompson & Daviess, for appellant.*

*Kyle, T. B. & P. B. Thompson, for appellee.*

Wherefore the judgment was affirmed.