alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<page>

                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of NT Media Corp. of California, Inc.
(the "Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Ali Moussavi, Principal Executive Officer and Acting Principal Financial
Officer of the Registrant, certify to the best of my knowledge, 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 result of operations of the registrant.

Dated:  August 14, 2008

                                             /s/ Ali Moussavi
                                             -------------------------
                                             Ali Moussavi
                                             Principal Executive Officer
                                             and Acting Principal Financial
                                             Officer
Exhibit 31.1

RULE 13a-14(d) Certification

 

I, In-Young Chase, certify that:

 

1.	I havereviewed this report on Form 10–K and all reports on Form 10–D required to be filed in respect of the period coveredby this report on Form 10–K of SATURNS Trust No. 2007-1 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

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

 

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

 

4. 	Basedon my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except asdisclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer, U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) assuccessor in interest to Bank of America, National Association (“BANA”), ofSATURNS Trust No. 2007-1, has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement,which is the Trust Agreement relating to SATURNS Trust No. 2007-1; and

 

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

 

In giving thecertifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bankas successor-in-interest to BANA and its officers and agents.

 

 

By:	/s/In-YoungChase	

Name:	In-YoungChase
#### In re T.J.D.W. & J.J.W.

Case below: 182 N.C. App. 394

No. 202A07

1. Respondent’s (Mother) NOA (Dissent) (COA06-1323)

2. Respondent’s (Mother) PDR as to Additional Issues

1. _

2. Denied 08/23/07
# Un ited Sta tes C our t of A pp eals For the First C ircuit

No. 03-1383 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant,

v. BRADFORD C. COUNCILMAN, Defendant, Appellee.

Before Boudin, Chief Judge , Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge , Torruella, Selya, Lynch, Lipez and Howard Circuit Judges .

Order of Court Entered: October 5, 2004

Amajority of the judges of this court in active service have voted to rehear this matter en banc. Thus, the petiti on for rehearing en banc is granted, and the petition for panel rehearing is denied as moot. In accordance with customary practice, the panel opinion and dissent released on June 29, 2004 are withdrawn, and the judgment entered June 29, 2004 is vacated. The parties shall simultaneously submit within 30 days of the date of this order supplemental briefs not exceeding 30 pages per side. In preparing these briefs, counsel should be aware that the en banc court will have copies of all prior briefs and copies of the petition for rehearing en banc. Although the parties can address other issues in their supplemental submissions, and the en banc court is free to consider all of the issues presented, the court specifically requests that the parties address the following questions:-2-

1. Whether the conduct at issue in this case could have been additionally, or alternatively, prosecuted under the Stored Communications Act? 2. W hether the rule of lenity precludes prosecution in t hi s case? Oral argument is scheduled for 3:00 p.m. on December 8, 2004 in the en banc courtroom in the John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse. The court welcomes timely motions to file amicus briefs concerning any of the issues in this appeal.

By the Court: __/s/___________________ Richard Cushing Donovan, Clerk of Court

[Certified copy to Hon. Michae l A. Ponsor and Mr. Tony Anasta s, Clerk, United States District Courtfor Mass achuset

ts . Copies to Mr. Katzmann, Ms. Chaitowitz, Mr. Levenson, Mr. Salgado, Mr. Kerr, Mr. Swire and Mr. Good.]
----

**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS      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**

|   | By:              | /s/ ARTHUR                D. LEVINSON                                                                  |   |
|--------|------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name:Title:Date: | Arthur                D. Levinson, Ph.D.Chief                Executive OfficerAugust                2, 2006 |   |

|   | By:                    | /s/ DAVID                A. EBERSMAN                                                                                                                         |   |
|--------|------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name:Title: Date: | David                A. EbersmanExecutive                Vice President and    Chief                Financial OfficerAugust                2, 2006 |   |

----
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 11 (Friday, January 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 2422]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00615]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than February 12, 2015.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant 
Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. CB Edinburg Holdings, Inc., Edinburg, Illinois; to become a bank 
holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of 
Citizens Bank of Edinburg, Edinburg, Illinois.


Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 13, 2015.
Michael J. Lewandowski,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2015-00615 Filed 1-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
----

| 1.     | the      report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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      at and for the year ended December 31,2008. |

| April 13, 2009 |   | /s/ Dana C. Gavenda                                      |   |
|----------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date           |   | Dana      C. Gavenda                                     |   |
|           |   | President      and Chief Executive Officer               |   |
|           |   |                                                     |   |
|           |   |                                                     |   |
| April 13, 2009 |   | /s/ Kevin D. Maroney                                     |   |
| Date           |   | Kevin      D. Maroney                                    |   |
|           |   | Executive      Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer |
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
 Pursuant to Section 13 OR 15(d) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 AUGUST 18, 2005
 NORTEL NETWORKS LIMITED
 
 CANADA
    
    000-30758
    
    62-12-62580(State or other jurisdiction
of incorporation)
    
    Commission
File Number)
    
    (IRS Employer
Identification No.)
 8200 DIXIE ROAD, SUITE 100, BRAMPTON, ONTARIO, CANADA
    
    L6T 5P6(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    (Zip Code)
 905-863-0000
  
  o
 o
 o
 o




---



##### 



Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement
     Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits
 Exhibits
 10.1
    
    Letter dated March 1, 2005 to Nortel Networks Corporation, from the officers
indicated therein.




---



##### 



SIGNATURES
  NORTEL NETWORKS LIMITEDBy:
    /s/ Peter W. CurriePeter W. CurrieExecutive Vice-President and
Chief Financial Officer By:
    /s/ Gordon A. DaviesGordon A. DaviesAssistant General Counsel  Securities
and Corporate Secretary




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX
 Exhibit No.
    
    Description10.1
    
    
    Letter dated March 1, 2005 to Nortel Networks Corporation, from the officers indicated therein.
From: The District Court of the 12th Judicial District. County of Hill.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, *16vs. ZANE WYMORE, Defendant,

*15CAUSE NO. DC-01-087

*16DECISION

On August 25,2008, the defendant was sentenced to a commitment to the Department of Public Heath and Human Services for a period of five (5) years, for violation of the conditions of a suspended sentence, for the offense of Aggravated Assault, a felony.

On October 9, 2008, the Montana State Hospital Forensic Review Board conducted a review of defendant’s progress and recommended that defendant be transferred to the Montana State Prison for the remainder of his sentence as he had reached maximum hospital benefits.

On February 12,2009, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Eric Olson. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 12th day of February, 2009.

DATED this 27th day of February, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Richard Simonton.
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 12-40572 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. FERNANDO SERGIO SERNA-RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:12-CR-73-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Fernando Sergio Serna-Rivera challenges his sentence on the ground that the district court engaged in double count i n g b y using his prior drug-trafficking conviction to increase both his offense level and his criminal history score. Serna-Rivera raises the i s s u e to preserve it for p ossible further review but concedes that his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Calbat , 266 F.3d 358, 36 4 ( 5 th C i r . 2001), and United States v. Box , 5 0 F

. 3 d 3 4 5, 359 (5th Cir. 1995). See United States v. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Octob er 16 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-40572 Document: 00512021512 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/16/2012No. 12-40572

Duarte , 569 F.3d 528, 5 2 9 -31 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-40572 Document: 00512021512 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/16/2012
**Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONI, Terrance J. Lillis, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D requiredto be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of PrincipalLife Income Fundings Trust 2007-13 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements 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 informationrequired to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report isincluded in the Exchange Act periodic reports;  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in thisreport under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement(s) in all material respects; and  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be includedin this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports 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 thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A. and Bankers Trust Company, N.A.Date: March 27, 2008   /s/ Terrance J. Lillis   Terrance J. Lillis  Chief Financial Officer- Retirement and Investor Services
Amendment No. 1 to STERIS Corporation 2006 Long-Term Equity Incentive Plan



  
 EXHIBIT 10.11 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO STERIS CORPORATION 
 2006 LONG-TERM EQUITY
INCENTIVE PLAN 
 1.  The STERIS Corporation 2006 Long-Term Equity Incentive Plan (“Plan”) is amended to provide that Section 13 of the Plan
shall be deleted and the following provision substituted therefor: 
 13.  Adjustments.  The Board shall make or provide for such
adjustments in the numbers of Common Shares covered by outstanding Option Rights, Appreciation Rights, Restricted Stock Units, Performance Shares and Performance Units granted hereunder and, if applicable, in the number of Common Shares covered by
other awards granted pursuant to Section 10 hereof, in the Option Price and Base Price provided in outstanding Option Rights and Appreciation Rights, and in the kind of shares covered thereby, as is equitably required to prevent dilution or
enlargement of the rights of Participants or Optionees that otherwise would result from (a) any stock dividend, stock split, combination of shares, recapitalization or other change in the capital structure of the Company, or (b) any
merger, consolidation, spin-off, split- off, spin-out, split-up, reorganization, partial or complete liquidation or other distribution of assets, issuance of rights or warrants to purchase securities, or (c) any other corporate transaction or
event having an effect similar to any of the foregoing. The Board shall also make or provide for such adjustments in the numbers of shares specified in Section 3 of this Plan as is appropriate to reflect any transaction or event described in
the preceding sentence. Any such adjustment to the number specified in Section 3(b)(i) will be made in such manner as not to cause any option intended to qualify as an Incentive Stock Option to fail so to qualify. Moreover, in the event of any
such transaction or event or in the event of a Change in Control, the Board, in its discretion, may provide in substitution for any or all outstanding awards under this Plan such alternative consideration (including cash), if any, as it may
determine to be equitable in the circumstances and may require in connection therewith the surrender of all awards so replaced. 
  

 110
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 22-2113

___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee , v. Dana Ray Day, Jr., lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
.

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City

____________ Submitted: November 30, 2022 Filed: December 5, 2022 [Unpublished]

____________ Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Dana Day, Jr. appeals afte r a jury found him guilty of a firearm offense, and the district court 1 sentenced him to 120 months in prison. His counsel has moved to

1 The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the admission of cer tain evidence at trial and the reasonableness of the sentence. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting photographs of the firearm and its markings, which showed where it was manufactured, see United States v. Buchanan , 604 F.3d 517, 521-23 (8th Cir. 2010); United States v. Stockton , 968 F.2d 715, 719 (8th Cir. 1992), or the investigator’s expert testimony as to the firearm markings, see Fed. R. Evid. 703; United States v. Carter , 270 F.3d 731, 735 (8th Cir. 2001); United States v. Thody , 978 F.2d 625, 630-31 (10th Cir. 1992). In any event, the investigator confirmed through independent evidence that the gun had been in interstate commerce. See Buchanan , 604 F.3d at 523-24. Day’s sentence was not unreasonable, as there is no indication that the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significan t weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgm ent in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster , 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); see also United States v. Callaway , 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous i ssues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL RAE WILSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

BULLHEAD CITY POLICE 

DEPARTMENT; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 23-15468 

D.C. No. 3:21-cv-08118-DLR 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 17, 2024**

Before: WARDLAW, BADE, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Daniel Rae Wilson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary 

judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Fourth Amendment excessive 

force claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a 

district court’s summary judgment and qualified immunity determination. Furnace 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

SEP 23 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 23-15468 

v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of 

qualified immunity because defendants’ conduct did not violate clearly established 

rights. See Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 778-79 (2014) (defendants sued 

under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violated a right that 

was clearly established; “a defendant cannot be said to have violated a clearly 

established right unless the right’s contours were sufficiently definite that any 

reasonable official in the defendant’s shoes would have understood that he was 

violating it”).

AFFIRMED.