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

















CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Annual Report of Consolidation Services, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stephen M. Thompson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





(2)           Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated:  April 15, 2011
/s/ Stephen M. ThompsonBy:  Stephen M. ThompsonIts:  Chief Executive Officer








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Consolidation Services, Inc. and will be retained by Consolidation Services, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. 01-51052 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LAFREDRICK DONTAI SMITH, also known as LaFredrick Donta Smith, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-01-CR-38-ALL

-------------------- June 18, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and, EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * LaFredrick Smith appeals his sentence following his guilty plea to possession with the intent to distribute crack cocaine. He argues that the district court erred in denying him credit for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. Challenges to the denial of a U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 reduction are reviewed even more deferentially than a pure “clearly erroneous” standard, United States v. Gonzales , 19 F.3d 982, 983 (5th Cir.No. 01-51052 -2- 1994), and the defendant has the burden of proof, United States v. Tremelling , 43 F.3d 148, 152 (5th Cir. 1995). We find that the district court was aware that it had the discretion to award Smith credit for acceptance of responsibility despite enhancing his sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 for obstructing justice. We further hold that the district court did not err in refusing to award Smith a U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 credit, because his case was not an “extraordinary” one under which adjustments pursuant to U.S.S.G. §§ 3C1.1 and 3E1.1 might apply. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment. (n. 4).
AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32

 

|   | CERTIFCATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Petrocorp Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof or the following date (the "Report"), James Fitzsimons, as Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) of the Company, each hereby certifies, 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 his knowledge, respectively, that:

 

|   | 1.) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | amended; and |
|--------|--------------|

 

|   | 2.) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | the Company. |
|--------|--------------|

 

 

| Dated: April 10, 2008 | /s/ James Fitzsimons |
|-----------------------|----------------------|

|   | ------------------------------------ |
|--------|--------------------------------------|

|   | Name: James Fitzsimons |
|--------|------------------------|

|   | Title: Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|--------------------------------|

|   | (Principal Executive Officer and |
|--------|----------------------------------|

|   | Principal Financial Officer) |
|--------|------------------------------|
**EXHIBIT 32.1**     **CERTIFICATION 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)**Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Spatializer AudioLaboratories, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies with respect to the Annual Report on Form10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”) that to his knowledge: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities and Exchange Act of 1934; and  2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.     Date: March 27, 2008      /s/ Henry R. Mandell    Henry R. Mandell    Chairman of the Board and Secretary  
43
[932 NE2d 877, 906 NYS2d 521]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kezine Murray, Appellant.

Argued June 1, 2010;

decided June 24, 2010

*726APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Mark Diamond,*New York City, for appellant.

*Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney,*Brooklyn *(Solomon Neubort*and *Leonard Joblove*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant entered a plea to criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree with the understanding that he would “probably” be treated as a youthful offender and sentenced to a term of nine months if he produced proof that he was in school, received a favorable probation report, and appeared as directed for sentencing. He was advised that if he did not meet these conditions, he would be sentenced as an adult to a term of two years in prison followed by two years of post-release supervision (PRS). Defendant did not appear on the appointed sentencing date. When he did appear, several months later and after issuance of a bench warrant, the court, citing defendant’s nonappearance, announced at the outset of the proceeding that it would sentence him as an adult, and, after hearing argument from defendant’s counsel, imposed an adult sentence. The reason for the court’s decision not to treat defendant as a youthful offender—his nonappearance on the original sentencing date—was rooted in the terms of defendant’s plea and evident to all concerned; this was not a situation in which the court arbitrarily trifled with the legitimate expectations of the defendant based on the plea *(see People v Selikoff,*35 NY2d 227, 240 [1974]). Under the circumstances, the court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant as an adult.

Defendant’s further claim that the term of the PRS component of his sentence (three years), although of legal duration, did not conform to the term indicated at the plea proceeding (two years), is not preserved. While preservation is unnecessary to our address of a nonconforming PRS sentence where the defendant has not been made aware of that part of the sentence *727before its imposition *(see People v Louree,*8 NY3d 541, 546 [2007]), here defendant was advised of what the sentence would be, including its PRS term, at the outset of the sentencing proceeding. Because defendant could have sought relief from the sentencing court in advance of the sentence’s imposition, Louree’s rationale for dispensing with the preservation requirement is not presently applicable.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.
#### Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Respondent, v Jared King, Appellant.

Submitted January 11, 2010;

decided January 14, 2010

Reported below, 55 AD3d 1074.

Motion by Association of the Bar of the City of New York et al. for leave to appear amici curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed.
**EXHIBIT 32.01**

** **

**Section 1350Certification**

** **

**Inconnection with this annual report of ML Systematic Momentum FuturesAccess LLC(the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this “Report”),I, Paul Morton, Chief Executive Officer, President and Manager of the MerrillLynch Alternative Investments, LLC the manager of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:**

** **

1.This Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The information containedin this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: March 31, 2009                       |             |
|-------------------------------------------------|------------------|
|                                            |             |
| By                                              | /s/  PAUL MORTON |   |
| Paul  Morton                                    |             |
| Chief  Executive Officer, President and Manager |             |
| **(Principal Executive Officer)**               | ** **       |
|                                                 |                  |  |

** **

**1**

----
Exhibit 31.1

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

** **

I, James Fitzsimons, certifythat:

1.      I have reviewed this AnnualReport on Form 10-K of Petrocorp Inc.;

2.      Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

3.      Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

4.      The small business issuer’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

            a.      Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to thesmall business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;

            b.      Evaluated theeffectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

            c.      Disclosed in this report any change in thesmall business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the smallbusiness issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, thesmall business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; 

5.      The small business issuer’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

      a.      All significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

      b.      Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: April 7, 2009

/s/ JamesFitzsimons    

     JamesFitzsimons

     CEO and President
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-87,625-01

EX P ARTE ROBERT DOUG LAS YOAKUM , JR., Applicant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 14070-A-1 IN THE 77 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM LIMESTONE COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant wa s convicted of injury to a disabled individual and sentenc ed to eig hteen y ear s’ imprisonment. He did not appea l his conviction. Applicant contends that his trial counsel rende red ineffe ctive assistance by fail i n g to investigate the case . Applicant alleg es that he lacke d the nece ssary mental state for the crime alleg ed and that the complainant was autis t i c wi th violent outburst so his action was nece ssary . He also alleg es that there was no bodily injury as a r esult of his action.2

Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief

. Strickland v. W

ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson , 993 S.W .2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In these circ umstances, additional fac ts are neede d. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez , 334 S.W .2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropr iate forum for finding s of fac t. The trial court shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim o f i n ef fec tive assistance of counsel. The trial court may

use any means set out in T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d)

. I f t he trial court elects t o hold a hearing , it shall deter mine whether Applican t is indige nt. I f Applicant is indige nt and wi s h es to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to repre sent Applicant at the hear ing. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. The trial court shall make fi n d i ng s of fac t and conclusions of law as to whether the perf ormanc e of Appl i ca n t ’s trial counsel was defic ient and, if so, whether counsel’s defic ient perf ormanc e prejudice d Applicant. The trial court shall also make any other finding s of fac t and conclusions of law that it deems rele vant and appropr iate to the dispositi on of Applicant’s claim for habea s corpus re lief. This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall be resolved within 90 day s of this order

. A sup p l em en t al t ranscript containing all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hearing or deposition, along with the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be for war ded to this Court within 120 day s of the date of this order. A ny extensions of ti me must be re quested by

the trial cour

t and shall be obtaine d from this Court.

Filed: Nove mber 15, 20173

Do not publish
Exhibit
10.19


 


 


July 12, 2004


 


 


Darrel Posegate


Executive Vice
President/Chief Financial Officer


HF Financial Corp.


P.O. Box 5000


Sioux Falls, SD  57117 – 5000


 


Dear Darrel:


 


I am pleased to announce
that First Tennessee Bank National Association has re-approved a Revolving Line
of Credit in an amount of Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000.00) to HF Financial
Corp.  HFC  may use advances under this
line of credit for:  i) capital infusion
to its subsidiaries to support growth and/or bank or branch acquisitions, ii)
acquisition of bank holding companies, and iii) other liquidity needs.  At or near maturity, FTB will review the
line of credit for the possibility of another one-year extension.


 


The interest on the
outstanding balance will be payable quarterly at a variable rate per annum on
the outstanding balance.  The variable
rate of interest shall be 1⁄4% discount to First Tennessee’s Base Rate, which is
currently 4.25%.  Thus, your borrowing
rate today would equal 4.00%.  The maturity
date of this commitment is May 30, 2005.


 


This indebtedness shall
be governed by the original covenants and conditions set forth in the
commitment letter dated June 3, 2003.


 


Additionally, this letter
confirms the renewal of Home Federal Bank’s Fed Funds accommodation of Ten
Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00).  This
accommodation covers the period from June 30, 2004 to June 30, 2005
and is subject to the following:


 


•                  In
accordance with First Tennessee Policy, this is not a confirmed line and is
subject to cancellation at any time.  Reasons
for cancellation include, but are not limited to changes in the financial
condition, in the senior management or the liquidity position of Home Federal
Bank or the funding mix of First Tennessee Bank.


 


•                  Requests
for borrowing over the pre-approved limit will be considered on a case-to-case
basis.  Fed Funds purchases need not be
renewed on a daily basis. Continuous borrowings in excess of fourteen (14) days
must be secured in full by U. S. Government or Agency Securities.


 

















 


•                  Requests
to borrow Fed Funds can be made by calling the Financial Institutions Division
at 1-800-934-8937 Extension 7981.  The
cutoff time for borrowing Fed Funds is 3:00 P.M. (CST).


 


Darrel, it is a pleasure
of First Tennessee Bank to provide these commitments/accommodations to your
institution and look forward to servicing the financial needs of the company in
the future.  Please do not hesitate to
call if you have any questions or concerns.


 


 


	
  Sincerely,

  
	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  /s/ David House

  	
   

  
	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  David House

  
	
  Vice President

  
	
  Correspondent Services
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. DER R IC K M Y R

AN FR ANKSON, a .k.a . De re k White , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-10619

D.C . No. 2:13-c r-00466-SM M M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Ste phe n M . M c Nam e e , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 18, 2014 ** B e fore : LEAVY, FISHER , a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. De rric k M yran Frankson a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s his jury -tria l c onvic t ion a nd 27-m onth se nte nc e for re e ntry of a re m ove d a l ie n, in viola

t ion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326. Pursua nt to Ande rs v . C

alifornia , 

# FIL ED NOV 28 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).386 U.S. 738 (1967), Fra nkson’ s c ounse l ha s file d a brie f stating tha

t the re are no grounds for re lie f, a long with a m otion to withdra

w a s c o unse l of re c ord. W e have provide d Frankson theopportunity to file a pro se supple m e nta l brie f. No pro se supple m e nta l brie f or answe ring brie f ha s be e n file d . Our inde pe nde nt re v i e w of the re c ord pursua nt to Pe nson v . Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), disc lose s no a rgua ble grounds for re lie f on dire c t a ppe a l. C ounse l’ s m otion to withdra w is G RANT E D. Frankson’ s pro se m otion file d M a y 9, 2014, to re lie ve c ounse l and for pe rm ission to file his own brie f is DE NIE D a s unne c e ssa ry . AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 1 0 6 1 9 2