alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Real Estate  Fund
XVIII Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-QSB  for
the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the
undersigned, Robert P. Johnson, President of AEI Fund  Management
XVIII, Inc., the Managing General Partner of the Partnership, and
Patrick  W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of AEI Fund Management
XVIII,  Inc.,  each  certify, pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  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 Partnership.


                          /s/ Robert P Johnson
                              Robert P. Johnson, President
                              AEI Fund Management XVIII, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              November 9, 2007



                          /s/ Patrick W Keene
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              AEI Fund Management XVIII, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              November 9, 2007
##### 



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 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 TeraForce
Technology Corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that: The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the Form 10-Q) of
the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and
for, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q. May 16, 2005
    /s/ Herman M. FrietschHerman M. FrietschChief Executive Officer May 16, 2005
    /s/ Robert P. CappsRobert P. CappsChief Financial Officer The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuant to Item
601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being
filed as part of the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filings of the Company, whether made
before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23



                   Consent of Independent Public Accountants

To First Chicago NBD Corporation:

     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
of our report dated January 15, 1998, included in this Form 10-K, into the
Corporation's previously filed Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 33-62713,
Form S-3 Registration Statement No. 33-64755, Form S-8 Registration Statement
No. 33-21036, Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 33-48773, Form S-8
Registration Statement No. 33-46906, Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 33-
50300, Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 33-53928, Form S-3 Registration
Statement No. 33-60788, Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 33-17494, Form S-8
Registration Statement No. 333-03175, Form S-3 Registration Statement No. 333-
08903, Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 333-05349, Form S-8 Registration
Statement No. 333-05347, Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 333-05375, Form S-3
Registration Statement No. 333-15649, Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 333-
16369, Form S-3 Registration Statement No. 333-36587, and Form S-4 Registration
Statement No. 333-47029.


                                                 /s/  Arthur Andersen LLP


Chicago, Illinois,
March 27, 1998
# FILED
July 9, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT JA CKSON

RODNEY BUFFORD , ) ) Petitioner, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9904-CC-00131 ) vs. ) LAUDERDALE C OUNTY ) STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) No. 5227 ) Respondent. )

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court u pon motion of the state to affirm the judgment of the trial court pur suant to Rule 20, Rules of the C ourt of Criminal Appeals. This case represents an appeal from the trial court’s dis missal of the petitioner’s pet ition for a writ of habeas corpus. On January 23, 1997, the petit ioner pled guilty t o aggravated rape and r

eceived a 13 1⁄2 year s

entence. Apparently, no appeal was taken. In his present petition, the petitioner claims his g uilty plea was inv oluntarily entered. The trial court dismissed the petition, finding that thi s is not an appropriate matter for consideration in a habeas cor pus proceeding. The trial court also noted that petitione r would not be entitled to pos t-conviction relie

f in this instance because the s tatute of limitati on had exp ired and b ecause t he petit ion was fil ed in the wrong count y.

On appeal, the petitioner clai ms the trial court erred in treating his petiti on as one seeking post-con victi on reli ef. If tre

ated as a

petiti on for pos

t-conv iction relief, the petition would clear ly be time barred. T.C.A. § 40-30-202. However , even considering this a petition for writ of habeas corpu s, the petitioner is sti ll entitled to no relief.
Habeas corpus relief is av ailable in Tennessee only when “it appears upon the face of the judgment or t he record of the proceedings upon which the judgment is rendered” t hat a convicting court w

as without jurisdic

tion or authority to sentence a defendant, or that a defendant’s s entence of imprisonment or other restr aint has expired.2

Archer v. State , 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993) (emphasis added). The j udgment clearly reflects that the convicting court had jurisdiction over

this petitioner and that the petitioner’s sentence has not expired. Since the petitioner’s allegation in this case would necessarily

involve invest igation beyond the face of the judg ment or record, the trial court properly

denied habeas corpus relief. See id. Even if the petitioner’s claim has merit, such claim render s the judgment voidable, no t void, and it may not be collaterally attack

ed in a suit for habeas corpus r elief. Passarella v. State , 891 S.W.2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). Moreover, when a peti tion for a writ of habeas corpus fails to state a cog nizable claim, the tri al court may summarily dismiss the petition. See Id

.

Accordingly, for the r

easons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED that t he state’s motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is af firmed in accordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Since the record reflects t he petitioner is indigent, costs of this proceeding s hall be taxed to the state.

____________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE

____________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUD GE

____________________________ JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE
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
  (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.
 /s/ Alan B. LevanName:
    
    Alan B. LevanTitle:
    
    Chief Executive OfficerDate:
    
    May 21, 2010
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2035 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Related Agencies, 

Corporation for National and Community Service, Operating Expenses 

for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Related Agencies, Corporation for National and Community 

Service, Operating Expenses for fiscal year 2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 RELATED AGENCIES, CORPORATION FOR NA5 TIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE, OPER6 ATING EXPENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for Related Agencies, Corporation for National and 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2035 IH

1 Community Service, Operating Expenses for fiscal year 

2 2024 may not exceed $786,629,000. 

Æ 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with BILLS
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-2993

___________

RUDOLPH CAMPBELL,

 Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

 Respondent

____________________________________

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

(Agency No. A018 852 760)

Immigration Judge: Honorable Andrew R. Arthur

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

November 23, 2011

Before: FUENTES, JORDAN and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: November 23, 2011)

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM

Campbell, a Jamaican citizen, was admitted to the United States in 1969. In 2010, 

he was served with a Notice to Appear alleging that he was removable as an alien who 
had been convicted of a controlled substances offense pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). That Notice to Appear was later amended, and Campbell was ordered 

removed as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) due to a 1998 conviction for possession with intent to distribute 

cocaine in violation of New Jersey Statutes Annotated §§ 2C:35-5a(1) and b(3). His 

appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals was dismissed, and he petitions for review. 

Because he is a criminal alien, this Court has jurisdiction to review his petition only to 

the extent it raises constitutional claims or questions of law. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(C), 

(D); Kamara v. Att’y Gen., 420 F.3d 202, 211 (3d Cir. 2005). As a threshold matter, 

such claims must be colorable. Jarbough v. Att’y Gen., 483 F.3d 184, 189 (3d Cir. 2007). 

Both of the arguments Campbell now raises are without merit. He first claims that 

the record does not support the finding that he was convicted of an aggravated felony. As 

the Board noted, Campbell conceded that he was removable and an aggravated felon. 

Because that concession alone supports finding that he committed an aggravated felony, 

this claim is meritless. See Hoodho v. Holder, 558 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2009)

(“Admissions by parties are not subject to judicial scrutiny to ensure that the admissions 

are fully supported by the underlying record.”). Campbell’s argument that the Notice to 

Appear with which he was served did not designate his New Jersey conviction as grounds 

for removal has no basis in fact. The Government filed a Form I-261 in November 2010 

specifying that conviction as grounds for removal, amending the Notice to Appear. See

Duhaney v. AG of the U.S., 621 F.3d 340, 344 n.2 (3d Cir. 2010). Accordingly, neither 

claim is colorable. Pareja v. Att’y Gen., 615 F.3d 180, 186 (3d Cir. 2010) (“To 
determine whether a claim is colorable, we ask whether it is . . . wholly insubstantial and 

frivolous.”) (quotation omitted). We therefore lack jurisdiction over the petition for 

review and will dismiss it accordingly.
PROVIDENT FINANCIAL
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

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

In connection with the filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Quarterly Report of Provident Financial
Group, Inc. (Provident) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003
(the Report), I, Robert L. Hoverson, Chief Executive Officer (Principal
Executive Officer) of Provident, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my
knowledge:

(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 Provident.

/s/ Robert L.
Hoverson Robert L. Hoverson Chief Executive Officer (Principal
Executive Officer)

November 13, 2003

[A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Provident Financial Group, Inc. and
will be retained by Provident Financial Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
| William C. Owens as Chief Executive Officer and President of Owens Financial Group, Inc., the General Partner of Owens Mortgage Investment Fund, a California Limited Partnership (the “Registrant”), and Bryan H. Draper, as Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of Owens Financial Group, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that: |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (1)  |      the Registrant’s Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) fully complies with the applicable 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 Registrant.                                                                                                                      |
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

              [Letterhead of Casualty Actuarial Consultants, Inc.]

March 10, 2005

Mr. Ken Mitchell
Chief Financial Officer
Symbion Healthcare
40 Burton Hills Boulevard
Suite 500
Nashville, TN 37215

RE: CONSENT

Dear Mr. Mitchell:

We consent to the reference to our firm and our actuarial report dated September
24, 2004 in Symbion's filing of Form 10-K as of December 31, 2004.

If you have any questions, or need anything further from us at this time, please
call or write.

Sincerely,

/s/  Cecilia M. LePere

Cecilia M. LePere, ACAS, MAAA
Senior Vice President

cc: Ed Costner - CACI
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1900 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Joint Items, Office 

of Congressional Workplace Rights for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Joint 

Items, Office of Congressional Workplace Rights for fiscal year 2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 JOINT ITEMS, OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL 

5 WORKPLACE RIGHTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail8 able for Joint Items, Office of Congressional Workplace 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 1900 IH

1 Rights for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 

2 $6,332,670,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
#### Bertha Prince, Respondent, *v. “*Robert” Weiland, First Name Fictitious, Real First Name Unknown to Plaintiff, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

December 8, 1924.

Trial — change of place of trial in action brought in Municipal Court of City of New York — action brought in ninth district in which plaintiff did not reside — defendant has right under Municipal Court Code, § 17, subd. 2, to have case removed to district of his residence.

Where an action is brought in the Municipal Court of the City of New York in a district other than that of the residence of the plaintiff, the defendant has the right under subdivision 2 of section 17 of the Municipal Court Code to have *180the place of trial changed to the district of his residence, and it is error for the court to change the place of trial to the district in which both parties have their place of business and in which the plaintiff resides.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, Seventh District, in favor of plaintiff, after a trial by a judge without a jury.

*Arnstein, Levine & Schwartz [Sidney S. Levine*of counsel], for the appellant.

*Bondy & Schloss*[«/. *Russell Stein*of counsel], for the respondent.

Per Curiam:

This action brings up for review an order made transferring the cause of action from the district named in the summons (ninth district, Manhattan) to the seventh district, Manhattan. Defendant moved for the change of venue to the district of his residence, namely, the first district, Bronx, on the ground that the plaintiff did not reside in the ninth district, Manhattan. The affidavit in opposition admits the averments of defendant’s affidavit, but makes a cross motion for the transfer of the action to the seventh district, Manhattan, in which both plaintiff and defendant had their business address, and in which plaintiff resided. Section 17, paragraph 2, of the Municipal Court Code provides:

> “ 2. If the action is brought in the wrong district, it may nevertheless remain there unless the defendant demands that it be transferred. Such demand must be made in writing and filed with the clerk before or at joinder of issue and must specify the district to which the defendant desires the action to be transferred and facts under oath showing that such district is the proper one. The Court must thereupon transfer the action to the proper district, and may in its discretion impose five dollars costs against the plaintiff.”

The corresponding section in regard to the place of trial of Supreme Court actions (Civ. Prac. Act, § 186) has been construed as meaning that where plaintiff brings suit in the wrong county the defendant may insist that it be removed to the county of his residence. *(Ferrin*v. *Huxley,*94 App. Div. 211; *Loretz*v. *Metropolitan St. R. Co.,*34 id. 1.)

We believe that the practice in the Municipal Court should be made to conform to this rule.

Judgment and order reversed and a new trial ordered in the first district, borough of The Bronx, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Guy, Bijur and Mullan, JJ.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 8, 2022

No. 04

- 17

- 00310

- CV

YATES ENERGY CORPORATION , EOG Resources, Inc., Jalapeno Corporation, ACG3

Mineral Interests, Ltd., Glassell Non

- Operated Interests, Ltd., and Curry Glassell,

Appellants

v.

BROADWAY NATIONAL BANK , Trustee of the Mary Frances Evers Tru st,

Appellees

From the Probate Court No. 2

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015PC2618

Honorable Tom Rickhoff , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

On December 6, 2021, we ordered the parties to file additional briefing in this appeal.

Appellants’ additional reply briefs are currently due on March 8, 2022. On March 4, 2022,

appellants EOG Resources, Inc., Yates Energy Corporation, Jalapeno Corporation, ACG3

Mineral Interests, Ltd., Glassell Non

- Operated Interests, Ltd., and Curry Glassel l filed a joint

unopposed motion requesting an extension of time to file their reply briefs until March 18, 2022.

After consideration, we GRANT the motion and ORDER appellants to file their reply briefs by

March 18, 2022

.

It is so ORDERED Ma rch 8 , 2022.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

__________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, CLERK OF COURT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Leslie Demond Williams v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-17-00646-CR

01-17-00648-CR

Trial court case number: 16-CR-3366

17-CR-0060

Trial court: 405th District Court of Galveston County

Appellant, Leslie Demond Williams, timely filed a notice of appeal of a judgment 

of conviction in three trial court case numbers: No. 16-CR-3366, No. 16-CR-3367, and 

No. 17-CR-0060. The Clerk of this Court docketed the appeals in three separate appeals: 

No. 01-17-CR-00646-CR, No. 01-17-CR-00647-CR, and No. 01-17-CR-648-CR. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 12.1, 12.2. Appellant’s brief in each appeal was due to be filed on 

November 2, 2017. See id. 38.6(a).

On November 20, 2017, appellant filed a motion to extend time in only one 

appeal: No. 01-17-00647-CR. We granted the motion and extended the time to file 

appellant’s brief to December 20, 2017. On December 18, 2017, appellant filed, in No. 

01-17-00647-CR, a second motion to extend time to file his brief. We granted that 

motion and extended the time to file appellant’s brief to January 19, 2018, with no further 

extensions. Although his motions referenced all three trial court case numbers, appellant 

has not filed a motion to extend time in No. 01-17-00646-CR or No. 01-17-00648-CR. 

Nevertheless, we extend the time to file appellant’s brief in No. 17-00646-CR and No. 

01-17-00648-CR to January 19, 2017, with no further extensions. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.6(d).
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: December 21, 2017