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

# 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 on Form 20-F of American Israeli Paper Mills
Limited (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned Avi Brener, Active Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies, 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 section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 result of operations of the Company.

Date: June 28, 2006

| |                                                
| | -----------------------------------------------
| |                                                
| | /s/ Avi BrenerAvi BrenerChief Executive Officer
Action Items

Interagency Fire Program Management Qualification Standards (IFPM)

Human Resources and Management Responsibilities

Date Human Resources Management

Previously

Completed

Tasks

Maintain a list of

problematic employees

including unit, contact

numbers, and supervisor

information

Confirm Receipt / Existence of Conditions of Employment or Employee

Agreement.

Review Individual Development Plan and incorporate measures to mitigate

missing qualifications.  Discuss with affected employee.  Document discussion.

Maintenance of IQCS Records

Mar/Apr,  

2010

Verify signed conditions of

employment for temps.

EPAPs – Time to meet with your employees and communicate and document

IFPM requirements.

Update IQCS Records

Note:  If you are going to be filling a vacancy prior to October 1, 2010, you must work closely with your

servicing personnel office.

May/June/

July, 2010

Advise supervisors on

Employee Relations (ER)

issues and potential

management actions. (for

example:  reassignments,

change to lower grade,

retirement, removals, etc.)

Supervisor to meet with unqualified employees (employee counseling).  

Discuss qualification deficiencies, plan remediation strategy, and verify EPAP

and IDP validity.  Discuss potential management actions that could result due

to unqualified status on 10/1/10 and potential career moves.  (i.e.

reassignments, change to lower grade, retirement, removals, etc.)

Document notes from this meeting.  Supervisor’s file.  

Update IQCS Records

August/

September,

2010

Continue consultations with unqualified employees.

Finalize strategy for employee management actions.  

Have discussions with

management regarding

unqualified employees.  

Support management in the

development of directed

reassignment / proposal

letters.    

Draft proposals letters to potentially unqualified employees in consultation

with HR.   Be proactive.

National IFPM Leads will audit IQCS data base and contact management

through appropriate channels to follow up on unqualified employees.

Update IQCS Records.

September

30, 2010 Last day of IFPM Implementation Period

Post September 30, 2010 Management Action Process

In cases where employees have not met IFPM minimum qualification standards by the end of the implementation period,

directed reassignments / proposal letters will be sent to employees addressing what management actions will be taken

(management actions may include directed reassignment, change to lower grade, or removal from federal service).

October 1,

2010

Serves in an advisory

capacity, ensuring

management is well versed in

HR procedures.

Management will present employee with directed reassignment / proposal

letter.  Timelines regarding response and appeal process will be explained in

the letter.

** Special Note to Management **    Action items contained in this timetable will be thoroughly communicated to affected employees.   

Supervisors (management) will be held accountable for ensuring timely completion of all action items.
| (1)    | The      Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31,      2009 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)      or 15(d) 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      as of the dates and for the periods presented in the    Report. |

| /s/ E. Renae ConleyE.      Renae ConleyChair      of the Board, President,and      Chief Executive Officer of Entergy Louisiana,  LLC |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTHONY LYLE TARKINGTON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

WILLIAM SMITH, Jr., Deputy District

Attorney, official capacity; MARY

SANCHEZ, Deputy Attorney General,

official capacity,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-55911

D.C. No. 2:12-cv-04849-JAK-E

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 26, 2014** 

Before: THOMAS, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. 

California state prisoner Anthony Lyle Tarkington appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of

FILED

SEP 4 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.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
post-conviction access to biological evidence for DNA testing. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Lee v. City of Los

Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 679 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm. 

 The district court properly dismissed Tarkington’s due process claims

because Tarkington failed to allege facts sufficient to state a cognizable claim for

relief. See Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289, 1298-1300 (2011) (prisoner can

state a cognizable § 1983 claim by alleging a general constitutional challenge to

state post-conviction DNA testing statute, but not by challenging such statute’s

application in his case; Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), is inapplicable to

due process claims for post-conviction DNA testing); Dist. Attorney’s Office for

the Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 69-72 (2009) (due process

requires only that the state’s procedures for post-conviction relief do not offend

fundamental principles of justice or transgress any recognized principle of

fundamental fairness in operation); West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (“To

state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege a violation of a right secured by

the Constitution or laws of the United States[.]”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Tarkington leave to

amend his complaint because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v.

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth

2 13-55911
the standard of review and noting that the district court may dismiss without leave

to amend when amendment would be futile).

Tarkington’s contentions concerning discovery and the default judgment

against Smith are unpersuasive. 

AFFIRMED.

3 13-55911
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7490

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus MOHAMMED ASAD SAID, Defendant - Appellant.

Ap p e a l f r o mt h e U n i t e dS t a t e s D i s t r i c tC o u r tf o rt h e E a s t ern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:03-cr-00556-TSE; 1:05-cv-1248) Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 28, 2008 Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mohammed Asad Said, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Mohammed Asad Said seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(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 dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and con c l u d e that Said has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Said’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorizatio n to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on- 3 -

either: (1) a new rule of c o nstitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discovera b l e by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish b yclear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 (2000). Said’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because th e f acts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

 

No. 03-1027

DEBORAH J. BARNES,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

FLEET NATIONAL BANK, N.A.;

FLEETBOSTON FINANCIAL CORPORATION,

Defendants, Appellees.

 

Errata Sheet

The opinion of this Court issued on June 2, 2004 is corrected as

follows:

On the cover sheet replace "Rosemarin" with "Rosmarin"
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sergio DIAZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-3887.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 2, 2006.*

Decided Nov. 3, 2006.

*559Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, FRANK H. EASTERBROOK and DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judges.

*

 After examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Counsel concedes that he raises his argument here only to preserve it for review by the Supreme Court. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

ORDER

Sergio Diaz was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which he argues is unconstitutional. He first made this argument when he moved to dismiss his indictment, asserting that the statute is unconstitutional under the commerce clause because it criminalizes the possession of firearms that do not substantially affect interstate commerce. *See United States v. Lopez,*514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995). The district court denied Diaz’s motion without explanation.

A jury subsequently found Diaz guilty. Afterward, Diaz moved for acquittal or a new trial under Rules 29 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure renewing, among other things, his arguments from his earlier motion. The district court denied this motion without explanation.

On appeal, Diaz reiterates his argument that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face because it lacks the required nexus to interstate commerce under *Lopez.*Diaz admits that the precedent of this circuit is against him and that he raises the argument only to preserve it for review by the Supreme Court.

We have consistently rejected Diaz’s argument. *See, e.g., United States v. Van Sach,*458 F.3d 694, 703 (7th Cir.2006); *United States v. Olson,*408 F.3d 366, 372-73 (7th Cir.2005); *United States v. Lemons,*302 F.3d 769, 772-73 (7th Cir.2002); *United States v. Bass,*325 F.3d 847, 849 (7th Cir.2003). If *Lopez*does invalidate § 922(g)(1), it is for the Supreme Court to so hold. *Lemons,*302 F.3d at 773.

AFFIRMED.
#### CREEDON v. TAUBMAN.

Civ. No. 24904.

District Court, N. D. Ohio, E. D.

Dec. 23, 1947.

Paul Marshall, of Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Arthur J. Ritari, of Fairport Harbor, Ohio, for defendant.

JONES, District Judge.

In this case the motion for leave to file answer to request for admissions was not filed until September 11, 1947, one week after the filing of the motion for sum*269mary judgment. The request for admissions was filed August 12, 1947. In such circumstances I do not see how the illness of the defendant can present substantial reason for not responding earlier. Nor were any answers tendered with the motion. Extensions always may be asked for, and usually are granted upon a showing of good cause, if timely made, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 6(b) (1), 28 U.S. C.A. following section 723c; but upon the facts presented here it does not appear to be a case calling for the permission provided by Rule 6(b) (2). Now to grant a motion to permit the latter filing of answer to the plaintiff’s request for admissions not only would prejudice the plaintiff’s pursuit of remedy and entail further delay, but it would put a premuim upon lack of diligence.

The case arose under the 1942 Emergency Price Control Act, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 901 et seq., now lapsed. The complaint was filed on May 2, 1947 and relates to alleged violations committed between April 28, 194*(5 and February 28, 1947. It is in the interest of closing out such litigation that the action hereinafter noted seems abundantly justified and, as I think, without undue prejudice to the defendant’s rights.

The motion for leave to file will be denied, and upon the facts presented, summary judgment may be entered for the sum of $165, which is calculated as treble damages. The demand for mandatory injunc-tive relief in respect of restitution is thought not likely to be effective and, if granted, has in it potentialities of further proceedings.
Exhibit 23

            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors
Anaren Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No.
33-36761, No. 333-03193,  No. 333-70397,  No. 333-70427,  No. 333-50390, and No.
333-50392)  on Form S-8 of Anaren  Inc. of our reports  dated  August 25,  2006,
except as to the restatement  discussed in note 1 to the consolidated  financial
statements  which is as of January 31, 2007,  with  respect to the  consolidated
balance sheets of Anaren,  Inc. and  subsidiaries  as of June 30, 2006 and 2005,
and the related consolidated statements of operations,  stockholders' equity and
comprehensive  income,  and cash  flows for each of the years in the three  year
period ended June 30, 2006,  and our report dated August 25, 2006,  except as to
the  second,  third and  fourth  paragraphs  of  Management's  Annual  Report on
Internal Control over Financial Reporting (as restated),  which is as of January
31, 2007, on management's  assessment of the  effectiveness  of internal control
over financial  reporting as of June 30, 2006 and the  effectiveness of internal
control over  financial  reporting as of June 30, 2006,  which reports appear in
the June 30, 2006 annual report on Form 10-K/A of Anaren Inc.

Our report on Internal  Control over Financial  Reporting  expresses our opinion
that Anaren Inc.  did not maintain  effective  internal  control over  financial
reporting  as of June 30, 2006 because of the effect of material  weaknesses  on
the  achievement  of the  objectives  of the control  criteria  and  contains an
explanatory paragraph that states that management has identified and included in
its revised  assessment  the  following  control  deficiencies  that resulted in
material  weaknesses  as of June  30,  2006:  (i)  the  Company's  policies  and
procedures   for  review  and  testing  of  program   changes  did  not  operate
effectively.  Specifically,  the  control  requiring  that  management  test the
program change prior to approving it was not operating effectively. As a result,
a program change error in a  work-in-process  inventory  system was not detected
and,  accordingly,  the value of  material  costs  was  incorrect  when  certain
conditions existed;  and (ii) the Company lacked adequate technical expertise to
ensure the proper  application  of the criteria with respect to  accounting  for
foreign  currency  translation   adjustments  for  discontinued   operations  in
accordance  with the provisions of Statement of Financial  Accounting  Standards
No. 52, Foreign Currency Translation.

As discussed in Note 12 to the consolidated financial statements, effective July
1, 2005, the Company adopted the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 123R, Share-Based Payment.


/s/ KPMG LLP

Syracuse, New York
January 31, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet at March 31, 1997 (Unaudited) and the
Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations for the Three Months Ended March
31, 1997 (Unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         638,215
<SECURITIES>                                     5,102
<RECEIVABLES>                                  141,685
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,667
<INVENTORY>                                     47,767
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               856,686
<PP&E>                                       1,983,014
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,435,652
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          415,718
<BONDS>                                      3,720,427
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    300,000
<COMMON>                                           243
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,478,934
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,435,652
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               110,676
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   58,161
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               110,203
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              75,267
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (260,286)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (39,436)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (220,850)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (220,850)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.93)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.93)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

UNION SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Union Security Insurance Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Peter A. Walker, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 20, 2006



/s/ Peter A. WalkerPeter A. Walker Treasurer and Chief Financial
Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Claudio Romero GUEVARA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-41850.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided June 21, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern Dis*491trict of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Claudio Romero Guevara appeals following his guilty plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute more than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana. He argues that 21 U.S.C. § 841 is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Guevara acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by this court’s precedent, *United States v. Slaughter,*238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir.2000), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review.

Guevara’s argument is foreclosed. *Slaughter,*238 F.3d at 582; *see United States v. Fort,*248 F.3d 475, 482-83 (5th Cir.2001). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.