alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 DDi Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bruce D. McMaster, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the
best of my knowledge, 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.
|-- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  
|------------------
|Date: May 14, 2003
|                  



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to DDi Corp. and will be retained by DDi Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### KING v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. 137P97

Case below: 125 N.C.App. 379

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 June 1997.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduardo MADRID-MANRIQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-50426.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Dec. 29, 2004.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Donna F. Coltharp, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Eduardo Madrid-Manriquez (“Madrid”) appeals from his bench-trial conviction *of*illegal-reentry, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Madrid challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss his indictment on the ground that the January 2000 deportation forming the basis for the indictment in the instant case violated his due process rights because the deportation order was based on a 1997 conviction of driving while intoxicated (“DWI”). He emphasizes that in *United States v. Chapa-Garza,*243 F.3d 921, 927 (5th Cir. 2001), this court held that a felony DWI conviction could not be used as a basis for a sentence enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A), because it was not a “crime of violence” and thus did not qualify as an “aggravated felony.” *See also Leocal v. Ashcroft,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 377, 379, 160 L.Ed.2d 271 (2004).

The denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment is reviewed *de novo. United States v. Wilson,*249 F.3d 366, 371 (5th Cir.2001). To challenge the validity of an underlying deportation order, an alien *368must establish that: (1) the prior deportation hearing was fundamentally unfair; (2) the hearing effectively eliminated the alien’s right to seek judicial review of the removal order; and (3) the procedural deficiencies caused actual prejudice. *United States v. Lopez-Vasquez,*227 F.3d 476, 483 (5th Cir.2000); 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d). Madrid has failed to show that his deportation proceeding was fundamentally unfair inasmuch as it did not violate his procedural due process rights. *See United States v. Lopez-Ortiz,*313 F.3d 225, 230 (5th Cir. 2002), *cert. denied,*537 U.S. 1135, 123 S.Ct. 922, 154 L.Ed.2d 827 (2003). The court need not reach the appellants’ remaining arguments. *See id.*at 231; *Lopez-Vasquez,*227 F.3d at 485.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Continuing Education Units

VERIFICATION OF ATTENDANCE FORM

Certification Number: ________________

 attended the following professional educational activity. 

(NAME)

Title: National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE) Webinar: Creating the Infrastructure Needed for 

Scalable Learning and Employment Records

Date(s): June 29, 2022 CEU Hours Earned: 1 hr 

Sponsor(s): National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

Explanation of Event: During this webinar we will provide an overview of LERs, describe several initiatives and pilots, and the 

technical and policy infrastructure that will be required to create a scalable and sustainable solution that can be leveraged by 

learners, employers, and education and training providers. Webinar attendees will hear presentations from: 

• Amanda Winters, Program Director, NGA Center for Best Practices, National Governors Association 

• Deborah Everhart, Chief Strategy Officer, Credential Engine

Location: Virtual Webinar; www.nist.gov/nice/webinars

Name of Meeting Host: Rodney Petersen, Director of the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE)

 

Contact Information:

nist.gov/nice 

nice@nist.gov

The Continuing Education Units form is provided as a courtesy. It is the responsibility of the 

attendee to complete and submit with their certifying authority.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 221 (Monday, November 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 68437]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27096]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-355-000]


Chevron U.S.A. Inc.; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Chevron U.S.A. Inc.'s application for market-based rate authority, with 
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a 
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is November 28, 2014.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f3b5b6a1b0bc9d9f9a9d96a08683839c8187b395968190dd949c85"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="88cecddacbc7e6e4e1e6eddbfdf8f8e7fafcc8eeedfaeba6efe7fe">[email protected]</span></a>. or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 7, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-27096 Filed 11-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED 9/30/98 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,343
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,140
<ALLOWANCES>                                       955
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,044
<PP&E>                                          67,053
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,730
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 208,958
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,961
<BONDS>                                        183,810
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,832
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,675
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   208,958
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,076
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,569
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   101
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   440
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,953
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    351
<INCOME-TAX>                                       167
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                184
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       184
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Greg SMITH, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-4790.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 10, 2004.

Decided Dec. 20, 2004.

Randolph O. Gregory, Sr., Law Offices of Randolph O. Gregory, Sr., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Michael R. Pauze, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

*257PER CURIAM.

Greg Smith was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit bank robbery, armed bank robbery, and use of a firearm during a crime of violence. On appeal, Smith, through counsel, raises two issues. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

First, Smith alleges that his June 5, 2002, statement given to FBI agents should have been suppressed because it was obtained in violation of *Miranda v. Arizona,*384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). We review the district court’s factual findings underlying a motion to suppress for clear error and its legal determinations de novo. *Ornelas v. United States,*517 U.S. 690, 699, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996); *United States v. Rusher,*966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir.1992). When a suppression motion has been denied, this court construes the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. *United States v. Seidman,*156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir.1998). Reviewing the evidence as required, we find no reversible error.

Second, Smith alleges that the district court should have granted his motion for production of FBI agents’ notes from a September 26, 2002, interview with Smith that were used to prepare an FBI Form 302 Report. While a defendant is entitled to disclosure of the substance of any of his oral statements the government intends to use at trial, the government need not disclose “rough notes” of the defendant’s interview that are later incorporated into final 302 Reports when the notes are not inconsistent with the 302 Report. *See United States v. Brown,*303 F.3d 582, 590-91 (5th Cir.2002); *United States v. Muhammad,*120 F.3d 688, 699 (7th Cir.1997); *cf. United States v. Hinton,*719 F.2d 711 (4th Cir.1983). Because the district court conducted an in camera review of the notes and the 302 Reports and found no inconsistencies, the court did not err by denying the motion for production of the notes.

Because Smith’s claims fail on appeal, we affirm his convictions. We also deny Smith’s motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion for leave to file a supplemental pro se brief. 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.

*AFFIRMED*
H. Res. 255

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

September 30, 1997.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 1370) to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank

of the United States. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and

shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by

the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee

on Banking and Financial Services. After general debate the

bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute

rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for

the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the

amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the

Committee on Banking and Financial Services now printed in

the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. Points of order against

the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute for
2

•HRES 255 EH

failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI are waived. No

amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a

substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report

of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution.

Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in

the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in

the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for

the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled

by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to

amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division

of the question in the House or in the Committee of the

Whole. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may:

(1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the

Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any

amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum

time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without intervening business,

provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the

first in any series of questions shall be fifteen minutes. At

the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the

Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with

such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member

may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment

adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the

committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The pre-
3

•HRES 255 EH

vious question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### WILLIAMS v. DANAC, INC.

No. 281P97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 229

Motion by both parties to withdraw petition for discretionary review allowed 23 July 1997.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONFURNISHED PURSUANT TO**

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

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Pliant Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Harold C. Bevis,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, thatto the best of my knowledge:

 

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

 

(2)                                          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|   | /s/ HAROLD C. BEVIS        |
|--------|----------------------------|
|   | Harold C. Bevis            |
|   | *Chief  Executive Officer* |
|   |                       |
|   | May 15, 2008          |

 

----
<PAGE>
   Exhibit 99.1 - Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by
   section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Tarpon Coast Bancorp,
Inc., the undersigned hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that this
report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.


Date: April 28, 2003                         /s/ Lewis S. Albert
                                             ----------------------
                                             Lewis S. Albert
                                             Chief Executive Officer
** **

**EXHIBIT 35.1**

** **

ANNUAL MASTER SERVICER’S CERTIFICATE

 

WELLS FARGO DEALER FLOORPLAN MASTER NOTETRUST

 

March 28, 2018

 

The undersigned, aduly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”), as the master servicer (the “MasterServicer”), pursuant to the Second Amended and Restated Servicing Agreement dated as of July 11, 2014 (as may be furtheramended and supplemented from time to time, the “Agreement”), between Wells Fargo and Wells Fargo Dealer FloorplanMaster Note Trust (“Trust”), does hereby certify that:

 

1.          WellsFargo is, as of the date hereof, Master Servicer under the Agreement.

 

2.          Areview of the activities of Master Servicer during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017 (the “reporting period”),and of its performance under the Agreement, has been made under my supervision.

 

3.          Tothe best of my knowledge, based on such review, Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in allmaterial respects throughout the reporting period.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned has duly executed this certificate the date first above written.
Exhibit 32.2

 

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2001. 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Havana Republic, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Leonard Sternheim, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001, that: 

 

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Dated: November 12, 2003 

 

/s/ Leonard Sternheim

Leonard Sternheim, 

Chief Accounting Officer
9990.

#### Melton *v.*The State.

Decided December 3, 1918.

Indictment for manufacture of intoxicating liquor; from Randolph superior coiirt—Judge Worrill. June 22,1918.

*C. W. Worrill, M. C. Edwards,*for plaintiff in error,

*B. ,T. Castellow, solicitor-general, R. R. Arnold,*contra.

Broyles, P. J.

1. None of the several excerpts from the charge of the court, excepted to, when considered in connection with the entire charge, contains reversible error.

2. The court did not err in admitting in evidence the distilling apparatus found on the defendant's premises.

3. The verdict was amply supported by the evidence, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth, J., concurs. Stephens, J., not presiding.*
Exhibit
13.1




SECTION
906 CERTIFICATION




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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




Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Vuance Ltd. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to
such officer’s knowledge, that:




The
Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 (the
“Form 20-F”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.




Dated:
      June 30, 2009
                                  
                                  /s/ Eyal TuchmanEyal
      TuchmanChief
      Executive OfficerDated:
      June 30, 2009
                                  
                                  /s/
      Lior MazaLior
      MazaChief
      Financial Officer





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