alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as chief executive officer of Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to the undersigned’s knowledge:

1) the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 27, 2008 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

2) the informationcontained in the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 27, 2008 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Date: December 9, 2008 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. and will be retained by Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Michael R. MINOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James V. CROSBY; James M. Condon; Henry McMaster, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 06-7386.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 17, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 24, 2006.

Michael R. Minor, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Michael R. Minor seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a con*481stitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispos-itive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Minor has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-41327

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GUSTAVO CAVAZOS-LEDESMA,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-97-CR-177-1

- - - - - - - - - -

August 20, 1998

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Gustavo Cavazos-Ledesma appeals his conviction for illegal

reentry into the United States after deportation, in violation of

8 U.S.C. § 1326. His sole argument is that the factual basis for

his guilty plea is insufficient because there was no mention at

his rearraignment of an arrest or a warrant of deportation issued

prior to the deportation. In 1996, § 1326(a) was amended, and

the word “arrested” was removed. See Illegal Immigration Reform

and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA)

§ 308(d)(4)(J)(i)(I), Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009. The 
No. 97-41327

-2-

amendments became effective prior to the offense conduct. See

id. at §§ 303(b)(1), 309(a). The argument therefore lacks merit. 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This Schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Form 10-QSB of American Metals  Service,  Inc. for the six months ended February
28,  1999 and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such  financial
statements.

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000319016  
<NAME>                        AMERICAN METALS SERVICE, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  SEP-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                          2,144
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                    0               
<INVENTORY>                     0               
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                2,144               
<PP&E>                          0               
<DEPRECIATION>                  0               
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  2,144               
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           3               
<BONDS>                         0               
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0               
<PREFERRED>                     0               
<COMMON>                        19               
<OTHER-SE>                      2,122               
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    2,144               
<SALES>                         0               
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                45               
<CGS>                           0               
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0               
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                31               
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0               
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0               
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 14               
<INCOME-TAX>                    0               
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             14               
<DISCONTINUED>                  0               
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0               
<CHANGES>                       0               
<NET-INCOME>                    14               
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   .01               
<EPS-DILUTED>                   .01               
        


</TABLE>
#### Julio Barrera, Appellant, v Julianne H. Klinger et al., Respondents.

[977 NYS2d 42]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bruno, J.), entered December 6, 2012, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v*
      *863
      *Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of the plaintiffs spine did not constitute serious injuries under either the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Staff v Yshua,*59 AD3d 614 [2009]), and that, in any event, these alleged injuries were not caused by the subject accident *(see Jilani v Palmer,*83 AD3d 786, 787 [2011]).

In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether he sustained serious injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of his spine that were caused by the accident *(see Perl v Meher,*18 NY3d 208, 215-218 [2011]; *see also Ramkumar v Grand Style Transp. Enters. Inc.,*22 NY3d 905 [2013]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Dillon, J.E, Leventhal, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D19-0440

_____________________________

CARLTON THOMAS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Angela C. Dempsey, Judge.

October 21, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, ROBERTS, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Carlton Thomas, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Exhibit 31(ii)
                                 --------------


                                 CERTIFICATIONS
                                 --------------

      I, Steve Bailey, certify that:

          1.   I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form
               10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by
               this report on Form 10-K of CHL Mortgage Pass-Through Trust
               2007-3 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

          2.   Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken
               as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material
               fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
               statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
               statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
               covered by this report;

          3.   Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and
               other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the
               period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act
               periodic reports;

          4.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
               servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the compliance
               review(s) conducted in preparing the servicer compliance
               statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of
               Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act
               periodic reports, the servicer(s) have fulfilled their
               obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all material
               respects; and

          5.   All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
               criteria for asset-backed securities and their related
               attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
               criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in
               this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and
               Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an
               exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this
               report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such
               reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

          In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
          information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The
          Bank of New York, as Trustee.

Date: March 26, 2008

             /s/ Steve Bailey
             -----------------------------------
             Steve Bailey
             Senior Managing Director, Chief Executive Officer Loan
             Administration
             (Senior officer in charge of the servicing function of
             Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP)
<PAGE>

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
F-10) of Rogers Communications Inc. ("RCI") and its wholly-owned subsidiary RWCI
Acquisition Inc. dated November 24, 2004 relating to the offer made by RCI and
RWCI Acquisition Inc. to purchase all of the Class B Restricted Voting Shares of
Rogers Wireless Communications Inc. not owned by RCI or its affiliates of our
report dated February 11, 2004 (except for Note 20 which is as at November 19,
2004), with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Microcell
Telecommunications Inc. as at December 31, 2003, May 1, 2003 and December 31,
2002 and for the eight months ended December 31, 2003, the four months ended
April 30, 2003 and the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001.



                                                      (signed) ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Montreal, Canada,                                          Chartered Accountants
November 24, 2004.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Norbert Grigger, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 299]

Garry, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Breslin, J.), rendered July 6, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.

Defendant waived indictment and pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree in satisfaction of a superior court information as well as another pending indictment. In connection with the plea agreement, defendant waived his right to appeal. Defendant was thereafter sentenced, as a second felony offender, to D/a to 3 years in prison. Defendant now appeals.

To the extent that defendant’s arguments regarding the validity of his plea and the adequacy of his representation implicate the voluntariness of his plea, these arguments survive his waiver of the right to appeal *(see People v Estrada,*102 AD3d *9751064, 1065 [2013]; *People v Benson,*100 AD3d 1108, 1108-1109 [2012]). However, the record does not reflect that either of these arguments was preserved for review by an appropriate motion to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction *(see id.).*In any event, these arguments are not supported by the record, which reflects that counsel negotiated a favorable plea agreement on defendant’s behalf and defendant entered a knowing and voluntary guilty plea after being fully advised of the rights he was giving up by doing so *(see People v White,*104 AD3d 1056, 1056-1057 [2013], *lv denied*21 NY3d 1021 [2013]; *People v Willi,*80 AD3d 884, 885 [2011], *lv denied*16 NY3d 900 [2011]). Defendant’s remaining argument that the sentence is harsh and excessive is foreclosed by his valid waiver of the right to appeal *(see People v Revette,*102 AD3d 1065, 1066 [2013]; *People v Stoff,*74 AD3d 1640, 1641 [2010], *lv denied*15 NY3d 810 [2010]).

Rose, J.E, Lahtinen and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Elizabeth A. VAN BUSKIRK, Appellant.

No. 07-3847.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 19, 2009.

Filed: May 22, 2009.

Kimberly Benjamin, Benjamin McLaughlin & Benjamin, PC, Harrison-ville, MO, for appellant.

K. Michael Warner, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO (Matt J. Whitworth, Acting U.S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.

Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Elizabeth Van Buskirk appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed upon revoking her supervised release. Counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the sentence was unreasonable.

We denied counsel’s motion and requested briefs addressing whether the district court committed reversible procedural error by failing to calculate or consider the Chapter 7 advisory Guidelines range. After reviewing the briefs, we conclude that there was no procedural error. Although the court did not specifically refer to the Chapter 7 advisory Guidelines range at the sentencing hearing, the record as a whole reflects that the court was aware of the range: the violation worksheet was available to the court and counsel, both the government and defense counsel requested that Van Buskirk be sentenced at the low end of the advisory Guidelines range, and the court conferred with the probation officer immediately prior to imposing the sentence. The record also reflects that, recognizing the advisory Guidelines range, *474the court chose to sentence Van Buskirk above the range after considering that she had repeatedly violated the conditions of her supervised release, that she was a methamphetamine addict and manufacturer, that she had originally received a significant sentence reduction, and that she was a bad influence on her son. *See*18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e), 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)-(C) (sentencing factors).

Finally, we conclude that Van Buskirk’s sentence is not unreasonable, *see United States v. Tyson,*413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir.2005) (per curiam), because it was within the statutory maximum, *see*21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A); 18 U.S.C. §§ 3559(a)(1), 3583(e)(3), and it resulted from the court’s consideration of proper sentencing factors, *see*18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e), 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)-(C).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

1

. The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 365 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 365

     To amend the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 to authorize 
 appropriations to provide assistance for domestic and foreign centers 
  and programs for the treatment of victims of torture, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 10, 2005

Mr. Coleman (for himself and Mr. Dayton) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 to authorize 
 appropriations to provide assistance for domestic and foreign centers 
  and programs for the treatment of victims of torture, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Torture Victims Relief 
Reauthorization Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR DOMESTIC TREATMENT CENTERS 
              FOR VICTIMS OF TORTURE.

    Section 5(b)(1) of the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 (22 
U.S.C. 2152 note) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``and 2005'' and inserting ``, 2005, 2006, 
        and 2007'';
            (2) by striking ``2004 and'' and inserting ``2004,''; and
            (3) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``, 
        $25,000,000 for the fiscal year 2006, and $25,000,000 for the 
        fiscal year 2007.''.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FOREIGN TREATMENT CENTERS 
              FOR VICTIMS OF TORTURE.

    Section 4(b)(1) of the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 (22 
U.S.C. 2152 note) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``and 2005'' and inserting ``, 2005, 2006, 
        and 2007'';
            (2) by striking ``2004 and'' and inserting ``2004,''; and
            (3) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``, 
        $12,000,000 for the fiscal year 2006, and $13,000,000 for the 
        fiscal year 2007.''.

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES 
              CONTRIBUTION TO THE UNITED NATIONS VOLUNTARY FUND FOR 
              VICTIMS OF TORTURE.

    Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 2006 
and 2007 pursuant to chapter 3 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act 
of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2221 et seq.), there are authorized to be 
appropriated to the President for a voluntary contribution to the 
United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture $8,000,000 for 
fiscal year 2006 and $9,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 6-K
 Report of Foreign Private Issuer
Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16
of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934
 For the month of October 2005
    
    Commission File
Number:   001-15014
 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL INC.
  
 (Translation of registrants name into English)
 150 King Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M5H 1J9
 
 (Address of principal executive offices)
  Form 20-F
    
    o
    
    Form 40-F
    
    þ
 Rule 12g3-2(b)
 Yes
    
    o
    
    No
    
    þ
 Rule 12g3-2(b)
 N/A
   Exhibit99.1
    
    Earnings Press Release dated October 27, 200599.2
    
    Shareholders Report for the period ended September 30, 2005




---



##### 



SIGNATURE
 Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 Sun Life Financial Inc. 
          (Registrant)Date: October 27, 2005
    By
    /s/ Thomas A. BogartThomas A. Bogart,Executive Vice-President and Chief Legal Officer