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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB ("Quarterly Report")of Itronics, Inc. (the "Registrant") for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2007as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, each of theundersigned, in their capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.

 

Date: May 14, 2007                        /S/ JOHN W. WHITNEY
                                          John W. Whitney

                                          President 

Date: May 14, 2007                        /S/ MICHAEL C. HORSLEY
                                          Michael C. Horsley

                                          Controller

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typedform within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

39
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-15-00263-CV

Texas Department of Public Safety

v.

Gabriela Noehmi Garza

On appeal from the

107th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2014-DCL-6585-A

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 9, 2015.
*Wednesday, February 19, 1997*

MOTION DOCKET

95-2591.

#### Sharon Village Ltd. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 94-M-1214. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the *1404Board of Tax Appeals. Upon consideration of the *amicus curiae*motion to participate in oral argument scheduled for February 19,1997,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that counsel for Franklin County Auditor, the Ohio State Bar Association, and the Ohio County Auditor’s Association may present argument within the time allotted to appellees pursuant to S.Ct. Prac.R. IX(5).
#### Nathaniel Howard THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cole JETER, Warden, Federal Medical Center Fort Worth, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 05-10476.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided June 21, 2006.

Nathaniel Howard Thomas, Fort Worth, TX, pro se.

Angie Lee Henson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Nathaniel Howard Thomas, federal prisoner # 07052-078, appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and that the Government had failed to disclose exculpatory evidence. Thomas argues that the district court erred in dismissing his petition. This court reviews issues of law de novo. *Jeffers v. Chandler,*253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir.2001).

A petition filed under § 2241 which attacks errors that occurred at trial or sen*480tencing should be dismissed or construed as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. *Id.; Pack v. Yusuff,*218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir.2000). Thomas’s § 2241 petition challenged his conviction, rather than attacking the manner in which his sentence was being executed. Thomas has not shown that the remedy provided under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. *See Tolliver v. Dobre,*211 F.3d 876, 878 (5th Cir.2000) (prior unsuccessful § 2255 motion or inability to meet successive-petition requirements does not render § 2255 “inadequate”). Further, the district court lacked jurisdiction to construe Thomas’s petition as a successive motion under § 2255. *See Hooker v. Sivley,*187 F.3d 680, 681-82 (5th Cir.1999). The district court’s judgment dismissing Thomas’s petition 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.
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 193 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on the Budget in 

the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 7, 2019 

Mr. YARMUTH submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on 

the Budget in the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES. 

3 For the expenses of the Committee on the Budget 

4 (hereafter in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Com5 mittee’’), including the expenses of all staff salaries, there 

6 shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts of the House 

7 of Representatives for committee salaries and expenses, 

8 not more than $10,380,424 for the One Hundred Six9 teenth Congress. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 193 IH 

1 SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS. 

2 Of the amount specified in section 1— 

3 (1) not more than $5,190,212 shall be available 

4 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at 

5 noon on January 3, 2019, and ending immediately 

6 before noon on January 3, 2020; and 

7 (2) not more than $5,190,212 shall be available 

8 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at 

9 noon on January 3, 2020, and ending immediately 

10 before noon on January 3, 2021. 

11 SEC. 3. VOUCHERS. 

12 Payments under this resolution shall be made on 

13 vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the 

14 Chairman of the Committee, and approved in the manner 

15 directed by the Committee on House Administration. 

16 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS. 

17 Amounts made available under this resolution shall 

18 be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by 

19 the Committee on House Administration. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

***Certification of the Principal ExecutiveOfficerPursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act***

 

I, Paul M. Ferguson, President, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Solera National Bancorp, Inc.;

 

2.Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant andhave:

 

(a) Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiary,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared; and

 

(b) Reserved

 

(c) Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented 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

 

(d) Disclosedin this report any changes in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially effect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b) Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 
| Date:  May 14, 2008 | /s/  Paul M. Ferguson          |
|--------------------------|--------------------------------|
|                     | Paul  M. Ferguson              |
|                     | President                      |
|                     | (Principal  Executive Officer) |

 

----
#### GINSBERG v. RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY, Inc., et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

Jan. 8, 1945.

See also 6 F.R.D. 371.

Irving I. Erdheim, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Saypol Si Kotler, Charles C. Evans, Willis B. Rice, and Mock & Blum, all of New York City, for defendant Railway Express Agency, Inc.

HULBERT, District Judge.

The gravamen of the defendant’s challenge to’ the sufficiency of the- complaint turns upon the interpretation of the context of the Tenth paragraph.

This is a patent suit. The Eighth paragraph charges infringement by the defendant Ernest Fried and Rose Katzowitz, and the Ninth paragraph charges infringement by the defendant McKettrick-Williams, Inc., of the plaintiff’s patent. Paragraph Tenth, in part, alleges:

> “That the defendant Railway Express Agency Incorporated, *together with the other defendants herein, singly*and in concert * * * *have*aided, abetted, infringed and contributed to the infringement and still *are*infringing upon said Letters Patent and upon the claims thereof, by using and causing to be used, manufactured, and causing to be manufactured, selling and causing to be sold * * * merchandise shipping containers, constituting an infringement of the aforesaid Letters Patent, with knowledge of said Letters Patent, and with intent to infringe the same * * * and the defendants so continue and threaten to so continue the said infringements and contributory infringements pf said Letters Patent, unless enjoined by this court.” (Italics mine)

It is the contention of the defendant Railway Express that by reason of the use of the verb “Have” (and the verb “are,” presumably) the defendant Railway Express does not know whether it is charged alone with any infringement. It seems quite clear from the language used that it is charged “singly and in concert” with the other defendants. It would certainly be less grammatical, and would not make the complaint any more definite and certain, to allege “has and have” and “is and are.”

There does not appear to be any reason why the defendant Railway Express cannot deny, if such be the fact, that it is *371infringing singly and in concert and threatens to continue said infringements and contributory infringements. It can then get such particulars as it may be entitled to by proceeding under Rule 26 et seq., or Rule 33, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. Motion denied. Submit order.
7 6-1S \\

&3, 307-0!
Ty THE CovRT OF CAZuzaa1, APPEALS
oF TExAS RECEIVED IN
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
No. VR ~ 33, 307-01 JUL 13 2015
et AbeiA
“TA RE BeAVLIo Dose ADORNO , RELATOR : asta, Clerk

Ol APPLZCATZON FoR A \weZT oF Anhadrenvs

Chus& No. 1095 79P-A Aa THE (TQTA DZsTA2T CoreT
FRoan Harezs GounTY

Apnoeess CHANGE

Clo A0ORESS ; ; NE. PORES
of fhe .

DaluacT onzT CofF LAL) UNtT
950. Fra 48 2661 Fin 9054

DaLHaat (Tx 14032 TEMMESSEE Colow'y , TX 758P4

ExeccTeo on wes Ghulir A —

BRAUELD Tose Adoano #1372697
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BANTA CORPORATION AS OF AND FOR
THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 29, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-29-1996
<CASH>                                          51,663
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  179,849
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,861
<INVENTORY>                                     62,108
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               304,673
<PP&E>                                         631,096
<DEPRECIATION>                                 305,589
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 682,938
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          108,110
<BONDS>                                        138,736
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,118
<OTHER-SE>                                     397,959
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   682,938
<SALES>                                        529,920
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               529,920
<CGS>                                          428,226
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  428,226
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                62,258
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,563
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 34,362
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             20,662
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,662
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.66<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.66<F1>
<FN>
<F1>RESTATED TO REFLECT THE IMPACT OF STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING
STANDARDS NO. 128, "EARNINGS PER SHARE." THE EPS UNDER THE
"EPS-PRIMARY" TAG REPRESENTS BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
ex10a-ipvanew-consent-preeff3






Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
We consent to the references to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information and to the use of our reports: (1) dated April 25, 2013 with respect to the financial statements of Principal Life Insurance Company Separate Account B, (2) dated March 20, 2013 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Principal Life Insurance Company, and (3) dated March 20, 2013 with respect to the financial statement schedules of Principal Life Insurance Company, in Pre-Effective Amendment No. 3 to the Registration Statement (Form N-4, No. 333-188293) of Principal Life Insurance Company Separate Account B and the related prospectus of the Principal Investment Plus Variable AnnuitySM Contract.
/s/Ernst & Young LLP
Des Moines, Iowa
July 24, 2013
CHRIS LEONARD THORNES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-4431

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 14, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Tatiana Salvador, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Gail E. Anderson, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Joshua R. Heller, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Walton v. State, 106 So. 3d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA), review 

granted, 145 So. 3d 830 (Fla. 2014).

WOLF, WETHERELL, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXA

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

7/10/2015 COA No. 

WALKER, WILBERT Tr. Ct. No. 12CR-115 

The appellant's pro se petition for discretionary review has this da

and filed.

A

12TH COURT OF APPEALS CLERK

CATHY LUSK

1517 W. FRONT, ROOM 354

TYLER, TX 75701

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 24


                               POWER OF ATTORNEY


     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that each of the undersigned directors and
officers of Bethlehem Steel Corporation, a Delaware corporation, constitutes and
appoints Duane R. Dunham, Gary L.  Millenbruch, and Lonnie A.  Arnett, and each
of them, with full power to act without the others, as his or her true and
lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full and several power of substitution,
for him or her and in his or her name, place and stead, in any and all
capacities, to sign Bethlehem Steel Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K,
and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in
connection therewith, including any amendments thereto, with the Securities and
Exchange Commission under the provisions of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of
them, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing
requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all
intents and purposes as they or he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying
and confirming all the said attorneys- in-fact and agents, or any of them, or
their or his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by
virtue hereof.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have hereunto set their hands and
seals as of the 31st day of January, 2001.


/s/ Duane R. Dunham                          /s/ Gary L. Millenbruch
-----------------------------------          --------------------------------
Duane R. Dunham                              Gary L. Millenbruch
Chairman, President and Director             Vice Chairman and Director
(principal executive officer)                (principal financial officer)

/s/ Lonnie A. Arnett
-----------------------------------
Lonnie A. Arnett
Vice President and Controller
(principal accounting officer)

<PAGE>

/s/ Benjamin R. Civiletti              /s/ Harry P. Kamen
-------------------------------        ------------------------------------
Benjamin R. Civiletti                  Harry P. Kamen
Director                               Director



/s/ Worley H. Clark                    /s/ William M. Landuyt
-------------------------------        ------------------------------------
Worley H. Clark                        William M. Landuyt
Director                               Director



/s/ John B. Curcio                     /s/ Shirley D. Peterson
-------------------------------        ------------------------------------
John B. Curcio                         Shirley D. Peterson
Director                               Director



/s/ Lewis B. Kaden                     /s/ John R. Ruffle
-------------------------------        ------------------------------------
Lewis B. Kaden                         John F. Ruffle
Director                               Director


                                       2
EXHIBIT 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF CONSTELLATION ENERGY GROUP, INC.*

|                                            |  | Jurisdiction
of
Incorporation
|------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Baltimore Gas and Electric Company          |  | Maryland                     
|Constellation Holdings, Inc.                |  | Maryland                     
|Constellation Investments, Inc.             |  | Maryland                     
|Constellation Power, Inc.                   |  | Maryland                     
|Constellation Real Estate Group, Inc.       |  | Maryland                     
|Constellation Enterprises, Inc.             |  | Maryland                     
|Constellation Power Source, Inc.            |  | Delaware                     
|Constellation Energy Source, Inc.           |  | Delaware                     
|Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation         |  | Pennsylvania                 
|BGE Home Products & Services, Inc.          |  | Maryland                     
|Constellation Nuclear, LLC                  |  | Maryland                     
|Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc.    |  | Maryland                     
|Constellation Nuclear Services, Inc.        |  | Maryland                     
|Constellation Power Source Generation, Inc. |  | Maryland                     
|Constellation Power Source Holdings, Inc.   |  | Maryland                     
|BGE Capital Trust I                         |  | Delaware                     
|Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC.       |  | Delaware                     



---



QuickLinks
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Petition for Writ of Prohibition

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 22, 2016.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 16

- 00749

- CV NO. 14

- 16

- 00750

- CV

IN RE EMILIO DE LOS SANTOS , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS WRIT OF PROHIBITION County Court at Law No. 4 Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 15

- CPR

- 028306



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On September 21, 2016, relator Emilio De Los Santos filed a petition for writ of m andamus in this court

. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 ( West 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the2

Honorable Sandy Beils tein, presiding ju dge of the County Court at Law No. 4 of Fort Bend County , to set aside the August 23, 2016 order directing relator to vacate certain property

. Relator has not shown that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Relator also filed a petition fo r writ of prohibition, to prohibit Judge Beilstein from holding any hearings in the case until this court has decided the petition for writ of mandamus. No appeal related to the underlying action is pending in this court. In the absence of a pending appeal, this court lacks jurisdiction over relator’s petition for writ of prohibition. See Bayoud v. N. Cent. Inv. Corp. , 751 S.W.2d 525 , 529 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1988, orig. proceeding) ( “ A court of appeals does not have jurisdiction, absent a pending appeal, to issue a writ of prohibition requiring that a trial court refrain from performing a future act

. ”)

. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, and dismiss his petition for writ of prohibition for lack of jurisdiction. We further deny relator’s emergency motion for temporary relief.

PER CURI AM

Panel c onsists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and Christopher.