alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32

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 Wellstone Filters, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form  10-KSB for the  period  ending  December 31, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I, Learned J. Hand, Chief Executive and 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, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities and 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/ Learned J. Hand
By: Learned J. Hand
Chief Executive and Financial Officer
March 30, 2004
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 15

- 00361

- CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MANUEL BEN AVIDES, DECEASED
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 of Cameron County , Texas

Trial Cause No. 2014

- CPC

- 55

- B

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, h aving considered this cause on appeal, concludes the app eal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant. We further order this decision certified below for observance. December 10, 2015
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-51063 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CARLA C. MODLIN, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-99-CR-407-ALL

-------------------- August 23, 2001 Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Carla C. Modlin appeals her sentence of 124 months’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to count one of the superseding indictment charging her with causing serious bodily injury to a child under 14 in violation of a Texas statute assimilated into federal law under the Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13(a) and Tex. Penal Code § 22.04. She argues that she unlawfully received a sentence of ten years and four months in violation of the Act. She contends that she could not have received more than ten years’ imprisonment for causing bodilyNo. 00-51063 -2- injury, not serious bodily injury, if she had been convicted under Texas law. She also argues that the district court erred by double counting the age of the child in calculating her guideline sentence. The Government argues that Modlin waived her right to appeal her sentence in her plea agreement. Modlin did not address the waiver-of-appeal provision in her original brief, and she has not filed a reply brief responding to the Government’s argument. A defendant may, as part of a valid plea agreement, waive his statutory right to appeal his sentence. United States v. Melancon , 972 F.2d 566, 568 (5th Cir. 1992). To be valid, the waiver must be an informed one. Id . When the record clearly shows that the defendant read and understood the plea agreement and that he raised no question regarding the waiver-of-appeal provision, the plea agreement is upheld. United States v. Portillo , 18 F.3d 290, 292-93 (5th Cir. 1994). At the Rule 11 hearing, Modlin swore that she had read and understood the plea agreement and that she had voluntarily signedit. The district court specifically referred to the waiver-ofappeal provision contained in the plea agreement and asked Modlin whether she understood that she had given up her right to appeal her conviction or sentence except under very limited circumstances, and Modlin responded that she understood. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Modlin did not understand or was confused by the waiver-of-appeal provision. The record shows that Modlin knowingly and voluntarily waived herNo. 00-51063 -3- right to appeal her sentence in her plea agreement. Portillo , 18 F.3d at 292-93.
AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       3,590,765
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,198
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      53,319,833
<DEPRECIATION>                            (34,597,889)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,028,001
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     35,314,204
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,028,001
<SALES>                                        101,238
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,300,780
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,122,252
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,291,584
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            886,944
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   886,944
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 22-0177

_________________

IN THE MATTER OF P.R.S.,

 Youth in Need of Care.

O R D E R

_________________

This Court reviews briefs to ensure compliance with Rules 10-13 of the Montana 

Rules of Appellate Procedure. After reviewing the Appellant’s brief filed on June 23, 

2022, this Court has determined that the brief does not comply with the Rules and must 

be resubmitted.

M. R. App. P. 10(2) requires that all briefs appealing proceedings regarding 

abused or neglected children shall be served on both the County Attorney and the 

Attorney General. The certificate of service on the Appellant's Brief indicates that it was

served only on the Yellowstone County Attorney, not upon the Attorney General. The 

Court will accept Appellant’s brief for filing after it has been served upon the Attorney 

General.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Appellant shall, within twenty (20) days, serve a copy of

Appellant’s brief on the Attorney General of the State of Montana and shall refile the 

brief with the Clerk of this Court including an amended Certificate of Service indicating 

such service;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no changes, additions, or deletions other than 

those specified in this Order may be made to the brief as originally filed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the times for any subsequent briefing contained

in M. R. App. P. 13 shall run from the date of filing of the revised brief.

The Clerk of this Court is directed to mail a true copy of this Order to counsel for 

06/24/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0177
Appellant and to mail a true copy of this Order to all counsel upon whom the brief was 

served. 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 24 2022
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2002 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2002

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
 Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
          Administration, Mental Health 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 Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
 Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
          Administration, Mental Health for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 
              AND HUMAN SERVICES, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH 
              SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, MENTAL HEALTH FOR FISCAL YEAR 
              2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Health and 
Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration, Mental Health for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 
$1,524,974,000.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 1 (Friday, January 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41-42]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30762]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and

[[Page 42]]

the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial 
property such as patentable material, and personal information 
concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the 
disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of 
personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel Member Conflict: AIDS and AIDS Related Research.
    Date: January 9-10, 2015.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Mary Clare Walker, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5208, MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 
20892, (301) 435-1165, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#255244494e40574846654656570b4b4c4d0b424a53"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1d6a7c7176786f707e5d7e6e6f33737475337a726b">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 29, 2014.
Anna Snouffer,
Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-30762 Filed 12-31-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2033 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Education, Departmental Management, Office of Inspector General 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 Department of Education, Departmental Management, Office of Inspector General 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 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, DEPART5 MENTAL MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF INSPEC6 TOR GENERAL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for Department of Education, Departmental ManageVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:25 Apr 17, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2033.IH H2033

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2033 IH

1 ment, Office of Inspector General for fiscal year 2024 may 

2 not exceed $61,143,000. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT
      32.1





CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


OF
      SWISS
      MEDICA, INC.


PURSUANT
      TO 18 USC § 1350














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 Swiss Medica, Inc. (the “Company”) does hereby certify, to such
      officer’s knowledge, that:





|(a) | The
              quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2007
              of
              the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
              15(b)
              of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(b) | Information
              contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects,
              the financial condition and results of operations of the
              Company.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Dated:
      June 15, 2007











/s/
      Raghunath Kilambi


Raghunath
      Kilambi,


Chief
      Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 2 (Monday, January 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 220]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30796]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ15-7-000]


City of Riverside, California; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on December 18, 2014, City of Riverside, 
California submits tariff filing per 35.28(e): City of Riverside 2015 
Transmission Revenue Balancing Account Adjustment and Existing 
Transmission Contracts Update to be effective 1/1/2015.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for 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#43050611000c2d2f2a2d26103633332c313703252631206d242c35"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c4828196878baaa8adaaa197b1b4b4abb6b084a2a1b6a7eaa3abb2">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 8, 2015.

    Dated: December 24, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-30796 Filed 1-2-15; 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>
Opinion issued January 17, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-12-01097-CV

———————————

IN RE MELISSA GIESEN, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Melissa Giesen, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this 

Court. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 

52.1. The related action pending in the trial is a suit to modify the parent-child 
2

relationship.*In her mandamus petition, Giesen requests this Court to order 

respondents to vacate the “Temporary Orders in Suit to Modify Parent-Child 

Relationship” signed on July 20, 2012. 

We deny Giesen’s petition for writ mandamus. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Brown.

 

*

The underlying case is In the Interest of [N.T.S., T.L.S. and W.W.S.], Children,

cause number 2010–78935, pending in the 245th District Court of Harris County, Texas. 

Giesen identifies the Honorable Roy Moore, presiding judge of the 245th District Court, 

and the Honorable Annette Kuntz, who acted as a visiting judge in the trial court, as 

respondents.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MANDEEP SINGH,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-70797

Agency No. A097-114-862

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted June 9, 2014 

San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Mandeep Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review

of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition.

FILED

JUN 19 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Singh could

safely and reasonably relocate within India. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(1),

1208.16(b)(1). The country reports indicate that the Punjabi police would not

pursue a non-militant, rank-and-file AISSF member like Singh outside the Punjab

region, and that the national authorities would have no interest in someone with

Singh’s background. Sikhs may practice their religion without restriction in every

state, and there are substantial Sikh communities throughout India where Singh

and his family could reside. 

Because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination regarding

relocation, substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief. See

8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(ii), (iv). 

PETITION DENIED. 

2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-4203

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

STEVEN J. KEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Elizabeth V. Hallanan, Senior

District Judge. (CR-95-195)

Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 17, 1999

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Natalie J. Sal, COHEN, ABATE & COHEN, L.C.,

for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Philip J.

Combs, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Steven Key appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed.

R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. Key sought reconsideration of his criminal conviction and sentence while his direct appeal was still

pending. Because Rule 60(b) is inapplicable to criminal cases and

because the district court lacked jurisdiction to reconsider Key’s

conviction while it was pending on appeal, we affirm the order of

the district court. 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