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

 

Certification Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United StatesCode)

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, UnitedStates Code), I, Wm. Stacy Locke, President and Chief Executive Officer ofPioneer Drilling Company, a Texas corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify,to my knowledge, that:

 

(1)           the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2003 (the “Report”) fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

(2)           the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:   February 5, 2004 |  /s/ Wm.  Stacy Locke            |   |
|------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                                     | Wm. Stacy Locke                       |
|                                     | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION OF

THE
TRUSTEE*

OF THE SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350

In connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2017 and filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joshua R. Peterson, Vice President and Senior Trust Officer of Compass Bank, on behalf of Compass Bank, the Trustee of the San Juan Basin Royalty Trust (the Trust),* not in its
individual capacity but solely as Trustee of the Trust, hereby certify that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies in all material respects with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (as explained in Note 1 to the Trusts financial statements
contained in the Report, in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin Topic 12:E, Financial Statements of Royalty Trusts, the Trust prepares its financial statements in a manner that differs from generally
accepted accounting principles; such presentation is customary to other royalty trusts); and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  |  |                                 |  |                                        
| |  |  |  | ------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------
| |  |  |  | COMPASS BANK, AS TRUSTEE OF THE
| |  |  |  | SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST   
| |  |  | 
| |  |  |  | By:                             |  | /s/ Joshua R. Peterson                 
| |  |  |  | Name:                           |  | Joshua R. Peterson                     
| |  |  |  | Title:                          |  | Vice President and Senior Trust Officer
| |  |  | 
| |  |  |  | Date:                           |  | May 10, 2017                           



|* | The Trust has no executive officers.
|- | ------------------------------------
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 801 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 300 North Hogan 

Street, Jacksonville, Florida, as the ‘‘John Milton Bryan Simpson United 

States Courthouse’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 14, 2005 

Mr. NELSON of Florida introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL

To designate the United States courthouse located at 300 

North Hogan Street, Jacksonville, Florida, as the ‘‘John 

Milton Bryan Simpson United States Courthouse’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The United States courthouse located at 300 North 

5 Hogan Street, Jacksonville, Florida, shall be known and 

6 designated as the ‘‘John Milton Bryan Simpson United 

7 States Courthouse’’. 
2

•S 801 IS

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the United 

4 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed 

5 to be a reference to the ‘‘John Milton Bryan Simpson 

6 United States Courthouse’’.

Æ
**EXHIBIT 23.1**
**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENTAUDITORS**
     We consent to the incorporation by reference inthe Registration Statements on Form S-8(Nos. 333-30558, 333-46990 and 333-81243), pertaining tothe 1992 Stock Option Plan, the 1993 Non-EmployeeDirectors’ Equity Incentive Plan and the 2000 EmployeeStock Purchase Plan, and in the Registration Statements onForm S-3 (Nos. 333-102988, 333-85160, 333-61866,333-25661, 333-32159, 333-23085, 333-17501 and 333-03507) andthe related Prospectuses of our report dated February 11,2003 with respect to the consolidated financial statements andschedule of Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. included in theAnnual Report (Form 10-K) for the year endedDecember 31, 2002.
 /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP    
Palo Alto, CaliforniaMarch 20, 2003
73
* 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. 97-50507

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NORRIS LOUIS McGRAW,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. MO-96-CV-171

USDC No. MO-93-CR-58-1

- - - - - - - - - -

July 9, 1999

Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Norris Louis McGraw, federal prisoner #60689-079, appeals

from the denial of his motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255. McGraw contends that trial and appellate counsel were

ineffective for failing to properly challenge the vulnerablevictim adjustment to his offense level and for failing to

challenge the district court’s restitution order.

The district court’s finding that McGraw’s victims were

vulnerable was not clearly erroneous. United States v. Leonard,

61 F.3d 1181, 1188 (5th Cir. 1995). McGraw therefore cannot 
No. 97-50507

-2-

prevail on his contention that trial and appellate counsel were

ineffective for failing to object to the adjustment.

Neither we nor the trial court granted McGraw a certificate

of appealability (COA) on the issue whether trial and appellate

counsel were ineffective for failing to challenge the restitution

order in McGraw’s case. We therefore lack jurisdiction to

consider McGraw’s contention. See Whitehead v. Johnson, 157 

F.3d 384, 388 (5th Cir. 1998).

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-50240

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

OSMAN MOLINA-RAMOS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:16-CR-945-1

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Osman MolinaRamos has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Molina-Ramos has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 26, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-50240 Document: 00514401717 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/26/2018
No. 17-50240

2

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-50240 Document: 00514401717 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/26/2018
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

** **

**Section 1350Certification**

** **

In connection with thisannual report of ML Systematic Momentum FuturesAccess LLC, (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (this “Report”), I, Barbra E. Kocsis, ChiefFinancial Officer of Merrill Lynch Alternative Investments LLC, the manager ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant of the Sarbanes-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, 2008 |                 |
|---------------------------|----------------------|
|                      |                 |
| By                        | /s/ BARBRA E. KOCSIS |   |
| Barbra E. Kocsis          |                 |
| Chief Financial Officer   |                 |
|                           |                      |  |

 

----
## Contact Information

Bethesda MD20892-4872

sara.myers2@nih.gov

February 2024

Back to Top
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

HOPKIN T. ROWLANDS, JR., 

 Respondent 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

No. 2112 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 

No. 115 DB 2013 

Attorney Registration No. 1818 

(Luzerne County) 

O R D E R 

PER CURIAM: 

AND NOW, this 30th day of January, 2015, upon consideration of the Report and 

Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated October 21, 2014, the Petition for 

Review and responses thereto, it is hereby 

 ORDERED that Hopkin T. Rowlands, Jr., is suspended from the Bar of this 

Commonwealth for a period of one year and one day and he shall comply with all the 

provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. 

 It is further ORDERED that respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board 

pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E. 

 The Motion to Reopen the Record is DENIED.
The District Court of the 11th Judicial District. County of Flathead.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. LANE PRICE, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-09-215 DECISION

On October 1, 2009, the defendant was sentence to a commitment to the Department of Corrections for a term of thirteen (13) months, followed by a four (4) year suspended period of commitment to the Department of Corrections, for the offense of Count I: Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol, a felony. This sentence shall run consecutively to the sentences imposed in DC-97-162 and DC-09-362.

On May 7,2010, 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 *48inadequate or excessive.

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

Done in open Court this 7 th day of May, 2010.

DATED this 26th day of May, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.
ACCEPTED05-15-00384-CV

FIFTH COURT OF APPEALSDALLAS, TEXAS

3/25/2015 3:08:04 PMLISA MATZ

CLERK

05-15-00384-CV

            FILED IN5th COURT OF APPEALS      DALLAS, TEXAS3/25/2015 3:08:04 PM          LISA MATZ              Clerk
## LORI SCHMID

Certified Shorthand Reporter

Hays County Court at Law

712 S. Stagecoach Trail, Suite 2292

San Marcos, Texas 78666

512.393.7740

Lori.schmid

@co.hays.tx.us

{___________________________________________________________}

Sent via e

- mail

Mr. Chris Knowles

3 rd Court of Appeals

IN RE: Cause No. 15

- 0173 ; Robert M. Zapata, App ellant v Bank of America, N.A., Appellee

Dear Mr. Knowles :

In response to our telephone call this morning, please be advised that the Reporter ’ s

Record has not been requested as of this date. Our telephone call was the first I

was aware that an appeal had been filed in this matter.

Once the Reporter ’ s Record is requested, I will respectfully request an extension.

Thank you.

Lori Schmid

Certified Shorthand Reporter
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 WMS Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brian R. Gamache, Chief Executive 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/ Brian R. Gamache   
|Brian R. Gamache       
|Chief Executive Officer
|October 31, 2008       

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 WMS Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Scott D. Schweinfurth, Chief 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/ Scott D. Schweinfurth
|Scott D. Schweinfurth    
|Chief Financial Officer  
|October 31, 2008
<PAGE>

                                      EXHIBIT A

                               ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT TO
                              ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                          OF
                                HA-LO INDUSTRIES, INC.


    RESOLVED, that Paragraph 1 of Article Four of the Corporation's Articles of
Incorporation is amended to read in its entirety as follows:

                                     ARTICLE FOUR

         PARAGRAPH 1:  The number of shares which the Corporation shall be
    authorized to issue, itemized by class, series and par value, if any, is:

    Class          Series         Per Share Par Value      Shares Authorized
    -----          ------         -------------------      -----------------

    Common          None             No par value             100,000,000
    Preferred       None             No par value              10,000,000

    FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation are
further amended by the addition of Article Nine which shall read as follows:

    Article Nine  OTHER PROVISIONS.

    Pursuant to the authorization of the Business Corporation Act of 1983 of
the State of Illinois (as amended from time to time), the requirement of
approval of certain acts by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the
votes of shares entitled to vote is hereby reduced to the affirmative vote of a
majority of the votes of the shares entitled to vote on the issue and a majority
of the shares of each class or series of shares entitled to vote as a class or
series.
United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted November 10, 2020*

Decided November 19, 2020

Before

DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge

No. 20‐2483

K. W., a minor,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

PONTIAC POLICE DEPARTMENT,   

Defendant‐Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Central District of Illinois.

No. 20‐CV‐1234

James E. Shadid,

Judge.

O R D E R

K. W., a minor (until November 28 of this year), sued the Pontiac, Illinois Police

Department for injuries related to an arrest that occurred ten years ago, when he was

only seven years old. Noting that he was unrepresented, the district court ordered K. W.

to explain why his suit should not be dismissed because as a minor he lacked the

capacity to sue. K. W.’s mother sought to sue on his behalf (with his approval), but

because she was also unrepresented, the judge denied her motion. Then, K. W.’s motion

* The appellee was not served with process and is not participating in this appeal.

We agreed to decide this case without oral argument because the brief and record

adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not

significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).   

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 20‐2483    Page 2

for the recruitment of counsel was denied because he did not demonstrate efforts to

obtain counsel on his own. The judge dismissed the suit without prejudice and entered

judgment. K. W. was advised that he could refile with counsel or when he reaches the

age of majority.   

K. W. appeals, but his brief does not comply with Rule 28(a) of the Federal Rules

of Appellate Procedure. His submission fails to advance any argument for disturbing

the district court’s judgment. See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8). Instead, the brief is a copy of

his complaint, with a new date superimposed and header information added. We

construe pro se filings liberally, but K. W. fails to provide even a bare‐bones argument

that he or his mother as next friend could litigate the case pro se. See Elustra v. Mineo,

595 F.3d 699, 705 (7th Cir. 2010). And we “cannot fill the void by crafting arguments and

performing the necessary legal research.” Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th

Cir. 2001).

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 97 (Thursday, May 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 23846]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11987]


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

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Notice

AGENCY: U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Public Meeting for EAC Board of Advisors.

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

Date and Time: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 8 a.m.-5:30 p.m. and Wednesday, 
June 3, 2009, 8 a.m.-5 p.m. and Thursday, June 4, 2009, 9 a.m.-12 Noon.

Place: Hamilton Crowne Plaza Hotel, Oasis Room at the Sphinx Club, 1315 
K Street, Washington, DC 20005, phone number (202) 682-0111.

Purpose: The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Board of 
Advisors, as required by the Help America Vote Act of 2002, will meet 
to receive updates on EAC program activities. The Board will receive 
updates on comments received regarding the Elections Operation 
Assessment Project. The Board will receive updates on the proposed next 
iteration of the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. The Board will 
discuss proposed updates and improvements to the 2005 Voluntary Voting 
System Guidelines. The Board will discuss and consider a committee 
recommendation on the proposed Draft EAC Report to Congress on Election 
Day Data Grants Program. The Board will hear committee reports, elect 
officers and consider other administrative matters.
    This Meeting will be open to the public.

Person to Contact for Information: Bryan Whitener, Telephone: (202) 
566-3100.

Gracia M. Hillman,
Vice-Chair, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-11987 Filed 5-19-09; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-KF-P
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-65,622] 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 18, 2009, in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at Groat Brothers, Inc., Woodland, Washington.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC this 29th day of April 2009. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-11859 Filed 5-20-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P