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 Quarterly Report of CompX International Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) I, David A. Bowers, Vice
Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer and I, Darryl R.
Halbert, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Controller of the
Company, certify, 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; 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/ David A.
Bowers


David A.
Bowers


Vice
Chairman of the Board, President


and
Chief Executive Officer

















/s/ Darryl R.
Halbert


Darryl R.
Halbert


Vice
President, Chief Financial Officer


and
Controller











May 1,
2009











Note:  The
certification the registrant furnishes in this exhibit is not deemed “filed” for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or
otherwise subject to the liabilities of that Section.  Registration
Statements or other documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
shall not incorporate this exhibit by reference, except as otherwise expressly
stated in such filing.
Exhibit 32.2

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 United PanAm Financial Corp. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Arash Khazei, certify in my capacity as Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President of
the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (a) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto signed this Certification as of July 31, 2006.



/s/    ARASH KHAZEIArash KhazeiChief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President
gOCR 30,#

JUD0EKEIIDAII. MAGISIRAIEJU6EUA'W, FELONY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

DESIGNATION SHEET FOR CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

1. Is this an indictment or information arising out of offenses charged in one or more

previously-filed complaints signed by a magistrate judge? No

1b. Should this indictment or information receive a new case number from the

court? Yes

2. Is this an indictment or information that supersed.es one or more previously-filed

indictments or informations? No

3. Is this a re-filing of a previously dismissed indictment or information? No

4. Is this a case arising out of the failure of the defendant to appear in a criminal

proceeding in this Court? No

5. Is this a transfer of probation supervision from another district to this District?

No

6. what level of offense is this indictment or information? Felony

7. Does this indictment or information involve eight or more defendants? No

8. Does this indictment or information include a conspiracy count? Yes

9. Identifu the type of offense that describes the count, other than any conspiracy

count, with the most severe penalty: other Federal statutes (rrr)

10. List the statute of each of the offenses charged in the indictment or information.

Title 18, United States Code, Section 19b6(a)(BXA)

Title 21, United States Code, Sections 8a1(a)(1) and 846

/s/ Grayson Sang Walker

Grayson Sang Walker

John D. Mitchell

Maureen McCurry

Assistant United States Attorney

FI LE T)

JUN 2 4?fi?0 l/

. 

THOMASG. BRUTON

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

Case: 1:20-cr-00309 Document #: 3 Filed: 06/24/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:25
EXHIBIT 99.1


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of United Pan Am Financial Corp (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), Guillermo Bron and Garland W. Koch certify in their capacities as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of the Company, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(a) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the 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 operation of the Company.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have hereunto signed this Certification as of August 9, 2002.





/s/    GUILLERMO BRONGuillermo Bron Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer





/s/    GARLAND W. KOCHGarland W. Koch Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT






Board of Directors and Stockholders
SFSB Holding Company

We have  reviewed the  accompanying  consolidated  balance sheet of SFSB Holding
Company  and  subsidiary  as of June  30,  2001,  and the  related  consolidated
statements of income for the six and three-month periods ended June 30, 2001 and
2000, and the consolidated  statements of cash flow and changes in stockholders'
equity  for the  six-month  period  ended  June  30,  2001.  These  consolidated
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute  of  Certified  Public  Accountants.  A review  of  interim  financial
information  consists  principally  of applying  analytical  and  procedures  to
financial  data and making  inquiries of persons  responsible  for financial and
accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in
accordance with auditing  standards  generally  accepted in the United States of
America,  the objective of which is the  expression of an opinion  regarding the
financial  statements taken as a whole.  Accordingly,  we do not express such an
opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material  modifications that should
be made to the  accompanying  financial  statements for them to be in conformity
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

We have  previously  audited,  in accordance with auditing  standards  generally
accepted in the United States of America,  the consolidated  balance sheet as of
December 31, 2000, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in
stockholders'  equity  and cash  flows for the year then  ended  (not  presented
herein);  and in our report dated  February 16, 2001 we expressed an unqualified
opinion  on  those  consolidated  financial  statements.  In  our  opinion,  the
information  set  forth in the  accompanying  consolidated  balance  sheet as of
December 31, 2000, is fairly stated,  in all material  respects,  in relation to
the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.


/s/S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.


Wexford, PA
August 10, 2001
STATE OF ALASKA HOUSE DISTRICT 1
SAMPLE BALLOT 1-1

PRIMARY ELECTION - AUGUST 22, 2000

INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTER: To vote for the candidate of your choice, fill in the oval to the right
of the name of the candidate for whom you want to vote. Place your ballot inside the secrecy
sleeve, take your ballot to the ballot box.

lf you make a mistake while voting, return the ballot to the election official for a new one. A vote
which has been erased or changed will not be counted.

a STATE OF ALASKA 7
= OFFICIAL REPUBLICAN BALLOT ~
pe] =
= PRIMARY ELECTION =
- AUGUST 22, 2000 =
— Completely fill in the oval opposite the name of each candidate for whom you wish to vote. @® —
by =
= ==
— UNITED STATES —
= REPRESENTATIVE =
— (vote for one) =
= YOUNG, DON E. Republican  _) =
[Wiemann f i]
=a =
_ STATE SENATE —
= DISTRICT A =
= (vote forone) _ =
= TAYLOR, ROBIN L. Republican © _) =
== PRIVETT, BILL Republican (_) =
a =)
= I
— STATE HOUSE ——
= DISTRICT ? a
= (vote for one) —
= WILLIAMS, WILLIAM K. "BILL" Republican (_) =
— =
= 1
=———] =
— =
a =
— =
= =
a a
— =
— ==
= =
= ==
a = SS ar a a

FRONT Card 1 SEQ# 1
#### M. C. Holt *v.*C. W. McGrew.

Bills and Notes — Assignment—Assignee May Assert Legal Rights of Assignor.

The appellee filed tlie note with his petition, with the assignment endorsed thereon, and this was evidence sufficient to authorize the rendition of the judgment against the appellant. The assignee of Sewell was before the court and entitled to assert the legal rights of Sewell himself, so far as they applied to the note in controversy.

APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT.

September 9, 1871.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The court in rendering the opinion in this case inadvertently used the name of Mrs. McGrew when it should have been Mrs. Scott. The opinion should have read as follows, and this is now substituted for the opinion rendered. The demurrer by the appellant Holt to the petition in this case was properly overruled. The appellee, although the note had been assigned to him, by *349Mrs. Sewell, who at the time was a feme covert, makes her husband a defendant to the action, and also his assignee in bankruptcy C. McLean. The appellant and the assignee of Sewell (McLean) were before the court by service of process and Sewell and wife by constructive service. The appellee filed the note with his petition with the assignment endorsed thereon, and this was evidence sufficient to authorize the rendition of the judgment against the appellant. The assignee of Sewell was before the court and entitled to assert the legal rights of Sewell himself so far as they apply to the note in controversy. His failing to answer was an admission of the allegations contained in the petition, and there was no issue made as between the appellee and the non-resident defendants, so as to require the warning order to have been made ninety days before the judgment, nor are they complaining in this case. If Mrs. Sewell had no power to assign the note the assignee of the husband who represents him should have asserted his claim to it. No bond was necessary to be executed to the non-residents as no judgment was rendered against them and so far as the record shows they have no interest in the controversy. The answer offered to be filed by appellant after the submission of the cause was properly refused as it presented no defense to the action. The judgment is *affirmed.*

*Mermes & Furber, for appellant.*

*Carlisle, for appellee.*
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

B R Y A N C A V E L LP

T W O N O R T H C E N T R A L A V E N U E , S U I T E 2 2 0 0

P H O E N I X , AZ 8 5 0 0 4 - 4 4 0 6

T E L E P H O N E : ( 6 0 2 ) 3 6 4 - 7 0 0 0

802765.1

BRYAN CAVE LLP, #145700

Robert W. Shely (No. 014261)

Teresa P. Meece (No. 032071)

Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2200

Phoenix, AZ 85004-4406

Telephone: (602) 364-7000

Facsimile: (602) 364-7070

E-Mail: rwshely@bryancave.com

teresa.meece@bryancave.com

Attorneys for Defendant Bank of America, N.A.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael Burggraf,

Plaintiff,

v.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., an Ohio

corporation, Equifax Information Services,

LLC a Georgia corporation, and

Bank of America, N.A., a national banking

association,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-00378-PHX-SRB

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

(Hon. Susan R. Bolton)

Pursuant to LR Civ. 40.2(d), Defendant Bank of America, N.A. and Plaintiff

Michael Burggraf (“Plaintiff”) by and through undersigned counsel, give notice to the

Court that the parties have reached a settlement as to all issues and claims by and between

the parties in the above-referenced matter. The parties request that this Court allow the

parties sixty days to finalize their settlement and to file a Joint Stipulation for Dismissal

with Prejudice.

//

//

//

//

//

Case 2:16-cv-00378-SRB Document 34 Filed 07/06/16 Page 1 of 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

27

28

B R Y A N C A V E L LP

T W O N O R T H C E N T R A L A V E N U E , S U I T E 2 2 0 0

P H O E N I X , AZ 8 5 0 0 4 - 4 4 0 6

T E L E P H O N E : ( 6 0 2 ) 3 6 4 - 7 0 0 0

2

DATED this 6th day of July, 2016.

BRYAN CAVE LLP

By:s/ Teresa P. Meece

Robert W. Shely

Teresa P. Meece

Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2200

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4406

Attorneys for Defendant Bank of America, N.A.

KENT LAW OFFICES

By: s/Trinette G. Kent (with permission)

Trinette G. Kent

Kent Law Offices

10645 North Tatum Blvd., Suite 200-192

Phoenix, AZ 85028

Attorney for Plaintiff

ORIGINAL of the foregoing e-filed on

this 6th day of July, 2016.

COPY of the foregoing mailed on

the 7th day of July, 2016, to:

Trinette G. Kent

Kent Law Offices

10645 North Tatum Blvd., Suite 200-192

Phoenix, AZ 85028

Of Counsel to:

Nitzkin & Associates

22142 West Nine Mile Road

Southfield, MI 48033

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Michael Burggraf

s/ Donna McGinnis

Case 2:16-cv-00378-SRB Document 34 Filed 07/06/16 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3861 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 3861

 To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit 
the operation of the Medicare comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program 
                               in Texas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 26, 2004

 Mr. Rodriguez (for himself, Mr. Sandlin, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. 
Frost, Mr. Turner of Texas, Mr. Green of Texas, Mr. Bell, Mr. Doggett, 
  Mr. Edwards, Mr. Reyes, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, and Mr. Gonzalez) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
   Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and 
 Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
   each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit 
the operation of the Medicare comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program 
                               in Texas.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON OPERATION OF MEDICARE COMPARATIVE COST 
              ADJUSTMENT (CCA) PROGRAM IN TEXAS.

    Section 1860C-1(b)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
29(b)(2)), as added by section 241(a) of the Medicare Prescription 
Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173), 
is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) No part in texas.--No part of the MSA is in 
                Texas.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### John C. Hardman & Wife *v.*Samuel A. Barclay, etc.

Ejectment — Proper Parties — Tenant in Possession Must be Sued — Defective Allegation.

Tbe original petition was defective in not distinctly stating who was in possession of the land sought to be recovered, and the alternative averment in the amendment, that the property was in the actual possession of the defendant or some tenant under her. The tenant in possession must be sued.

*492Ejectment — Constructive Possession — Legal Title.

One who does not hold the legal title cannot he constructively In the possession of real estate.

APPEAL PROM WARREN CIRCUIT COURT.

April 13, 1871.

*Rodes, for appellant.*

*Dulaney, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

Appellants, according to the allegations of their petition, have the legal title to the part of the lot therein described and have the right to the possession thereof. The Civil Code defines their remedy, and the proper court in which to seek it, and a form of a petition for the recovery of real estate is appended thereto, the original petition was defective in not distinctly stating who was in the possession of the part of the lot sought to be recovered; and the amendment did not remedy the defect, the alternative averment that'the property was in the actual possession of Stub-bins, “or some tenant under her,” does not state who is in fact in possession; the tenant in possession must be sued, and the averment as to who that person is must be direct and positive. Stubbins, according to the petition, may or may not be in possession, consequently it is uncertain whether appellants have a cause of action against her or not, nor is the averment amended by the expression that she is “actually or constructively in possession.” One who does not hold the legal title cannot be constructively in possession of real estate. If appellants’ original, or amended petition, had stated facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, it would have been proper for the court below to have transferred the case to the court having common law jurisdiction ; but as neither contained such facts there was no error in dismissing them without prejudice to another action.

Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.
#### Carl E. WATKINS, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent.

No. 04-3178.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Oct. 6, 2004.

Before MAYER, Chief Judge, RADER, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Carl E. Watkins appeals the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. *Watkins v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs,*AT-0752-03-0952-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Dec. 10, 2003). We *affirm.*

A retirement, to include a disability retirement, is presumed to be voluntary and beyond the board’s jurisdiction. *Shoaf v. Dep’t of Agric.,*260 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir.2001). Watkins may avoid this presumption upon a showing that his disability retirement was involuntary. *Id.*at 1341. To establish a claim of involuntary disability retirement, Watkins must prove that (1) after the onset of his disability and prior to his retirement, he sought to continue working, despite his medical limitations, with an accommodation; (2) an accommodation was available on the date of his retirement at, or above, his position level; and (3) the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) refused to provide him with an accommodation. *See Benavidez v. Dep’t of the Navy,*241 F.3d 1370, 1375 (Fed.Cir.2001) (affirming a board decision using these criteria).

The question before the board was whether Watkins had made sufficient non-frivolous allegations of fact to establish that his retirement was involuntary. The record shows that in December of 1997 the VA provided Watkins with a five-week accommodation period in response to a medical condition. He does not allege or prove that he requested another accommodation prior to the expiration of the five-week accommodation period. Furthermore, he neither alleges nor proves that a further accommodation was requested and available, but not provided, prior to his June 1998 disability retirement. Therefore, Watkins fails to rebut the presumption that his disability retirement was voluntary, and fails to present any grounds that invoke the board’s jurisdiction to review his retirement. The board’s decision is not arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.
Exhibit 13.2

Certification

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

(Subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18,
United States Code), the undersigned officer of LG Display Co., Ltd., a corporation organized under the laws of the Republic of Korea (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2011 (the Form 20-F) fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

Date: April 30, 2012



/s/ JAMES JEONGJames (Hoyoung) JeongDirector, Executive VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 has been provided to LG Display Co., Ltd. and will be retained by LG Display Co., Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District Of Illinois

Attorney Appearance Form

Case Title: Case Number: 

An appearance is hereby filed by the undersigned as attorney for:

Attorney name (type or print): 

Firm: 

Street address: 

City/State/Zip: 

Bar ID Number: Telephone Number: 

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

(See item 3 in instructions)

Email Address:

Are you acting as lead counsel in this case?

Are you acting as local counsel in this case?

Are you a member of the court’s trial bar?

If this case reaches trial, will you act as the trial attorney? 

If this is a criminal case, check your status. Retained Counsel

Appointed Counsel 

If appointed counsel are you 

a Federal Defender

 CJA Panel Attorney

______________________________________________________________________

In order to appear before this &ourt an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this &ourt’s 

general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for by local rules 83.12 through 83.14. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Under 28 8.6.&§1746, this 

statement under perjury has the same force and effect as a sworn statement made under oath.

Executed on 

Attorney signature: S/

(Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically.)

Revised 8/1/2015

Case: 1:20-cv-03490 Document #: 73 Filed: 10/09/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:394
##### 



Citizens Effingham Bancshares, Inc. and Subsidiary
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
For the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2004 Exhibit 32.1 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Citizens Effingham Bancshares,
Inc. and Subsidiary (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending
September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Harry H. Shearouse, President and Chief
Executive Officer, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)
    
    To the best of my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and(2)
    
    To the best of my knowledge, the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operation of the Company. October 29, 2004 /s/Harry H. ShearouseHarry H. Shearouse
President and Chief Executive Officer
 -14-