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 of Peak Entertainment Holdings,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Wilfred Shorrocks, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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; 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/WILFRED SHORROCKS
Wilfred Shorrocks
--------------------
Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer

August 20, 2003
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 of Atlas America Public #15-2006 (B) L.P.
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Freddie M. Kotek, Chief Executive Officer of the Managing General Partner,
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 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
      Partnership.





By:
            /s/ Freddie M.
      KotekName:
            Freddie
      M. KotekTitle:
            Chief
      Executive Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
            August
      12, 2008
No. 5083.

(Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans.)

#### ANCHOR SAWMILL COMPANY vs. ACME LUMBER COMPANY.

*469J. Zach Spearing for plaintiff and appellee.

Pierson, Walton & Pierson for defendant and appellant.

ST. PAUL, J.

Plaintiff brought suit against defendant for the price of certain lumber sold and delievered. Among other matters set up in defense, defendant admitted that it had given plaintiff an order for certain lumber, and averred:

> ‘ ‘ That the said order, to plaintiffs knowledge, was given to plaintiff to fill an identical order received by defendant from W. T. Carey & Bro., contractors, in this city, to be used by them in a building under contract with them.”

And defendant further set up:

> “That W. T. Carey & Bro., ** *** who promised to pay this defendant for the lumber ordered by them are bound as warrantors in favor of defendant, * * * and defendant is entitled to call them in warranty and recover against them as warrantors, whatever judgment may be rendered against defendant.”

And defendant prayed that W. T. Carey & Bro. be called in warranty, etc.

Carey & Bro. excepted to the call in warranty, as showing no cause of action. Their exception was maintained and the call in warranty was dismissed. From this judgment defendant appeals.

The judgment of the District Court is correct. Defendants answer, may or may not show a cause of action against Carey & Bro. for the price of the lumber sold to them by relator, which lumber relator had purchased *470from plaintiff, the Anchor Saw Mill Company, and for the price of which defendant is now being sued. That question, however, is not before us on this appeal. The only question presented at this time is whether the allegations of defendant’s answer show a right on the part of defendant to call Carey & Bro. in warranty in the present suit. We are of opinion, that it fails to show any such right.

June 8, 1910.

Rehearing refused June 22, 1910.

Nowhere in said answer is it alleged that Carey & Bro. are obligated or have promised to pay the debt, if any, which the Acme Lumber Company, defendant herein, owes to the Anchor Sawmill Company. On the contrary, it is distinctly alleged that Carey & Bro. promised to make payment to “this defendant,” and not to the Anchor Sawmill Company, the plaintiff.

The right to call in personal warranty can arise only when there is but one debt due by the defendant, but which the warrantor is bound to pay for his account. Here there are two distinct debts alleged, one due by defendant to plaintiff, and the other due by Carey & Bro. to defendant.

The fact that both debts may be for a like sum, and may have grown out of the purchase and resale of the same lumber does not alter the fact that the two debts are entirely distinct.

Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          31,942
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         679,122
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 2,990
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    380,943
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        465,387
<ALLOWANCE>                                      6,976
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 917,797
<DEPOSITS>                                     762,562
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             17,781
<LONG-TERM>                                     64,544
<COMMON>                                           562
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      72,348
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 917,797
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 29,945
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               18,028
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   255
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                48,228
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              19,275
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,448
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           25,780
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      750
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 342
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 20,357
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,528
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       9,528
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,702
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.35
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.06
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,775
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   967
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    315
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 6,427
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      691
<RECOVERIES>                                       490
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                6,976
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             6,976
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-15314

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cr-00070-CG-B-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

TORREY GRIFFIN, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

________________________

 (July 14, 2015)

Before HULL, ROSENBAUM and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Richard Shields, appointed counsel for Torrey Griffin, has moved to 

withdraw from further representation of the appellant and has filed a brief pursuant 

Case: 14-15314 Date Filed: 07/14/2015 Page: 1 of 2 
2

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our 

independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the 

relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the 

entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is 

GRANTED, and Griffin’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-15314 Date Filed: 07/14/2015 Page: 2 of 2
_____________

No. 96-2079MN

_____________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Minnesota.

*

Shon Michael Pierson, * 

*

Appellant. *

_____________

Submitted: October 25, 1996

 Filed: November 27, 1996

_____________

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

_____________

FAGG, Circuit Judge.

In December 1994, several police officers executed a search warrant

at Shon Michael Pierson's home. As the officers began searching his home,

Pierson told them there was some marijuana in the basement. In making

their search, the officers discovered two handguns and sizeable quantities

of marijuana and cocaine. Pierson was then placed under arrest. One day

later at the local jail, Pierson made some incriminating statements about

the handguns and cocaine to one of the arresting officers. The Government

charged Pierson with being a felon in possession of a firearm, with

possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and with possession of

cocaine with intent to distribute. Following a jury trial, Pierson was

convicted on all of the charges. Pierson appeals, and we affirm.

Pierson contends the district court improperly permitted the

Government to introduce his incriminating statements about the
-2-

handguns and cocaine. The district court had suppressed these statements

based on the arresting officer's failure to honor Pierson's right to remain

silent. During the cross-examination of the officer who elicited the

incriminating statements, however, Pierson's counsel asked several

questions the officer could not fairly answer without referring to

Pierson's suppressed statements. In so doing, counsel left the jury with

the false impression that Pierson had always denied any involvement with

the handguns and the cocaine. Like the district court, we believe the

misleading cross-examination opened the door to the Government's limited

use of the suppressed evidence to bring out Pierson's complete statements

about the handguns and the cocaine. See United States v. Johnson, 502 F.2d

1373, 1376 (7th Cir. 1974). Thus, the district court did not abuse its

discretion when it let the Government clear up the false impression created

by defense counsel's cross-examination. See id.; see also Harris v. New

York, 401 U.S. 222, 225-26 (1971) (defendant who testifies falsely may be

impeached with suppressed statements). 

Pierson also contends the district court improperly admitted evidence

about a cocaine transaction that took place about two years before the

current offense. Contrary to Pierson's view, Pierson's cocaine

transactions were sufficiently similar in kind and close in time that we

cannot say the district court abused its discretion when it admitted the

challenged evidence. See United States v. Huff, 959 F.2d 731, 737 (8th

Cir. 1992).

We affirm Pierson's convictions. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EX-10.1



 EXHIBIT 10.1 
 FIFTH AMENDMENT 
 TO THE 

AMERICAN EXPRESS RETIREMENT RESTORATION PLAN 

WHEREAS, pursuant to its delegation powers, the Compensation and Benefits Committee (the “CBC”) of the
Board of Directors of American Express Company (the “Company”) has authorized the Senior Vice President Global Compensation & Benefits of the Company generally to take certain actions with respect to the American Express
Retirement Restoration (the “Plan”) as he shall deem reasonably necessary or appropriate; and 

WHEREAS, the undersigned Senior Vice President Global Compensation & Benefits deems it reasonably
necessary and appropriate to amend the American Express Retirement Restoration Plan (the “Plan’’) to make certain clarifying changes, as set forth below; now 

THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended effective as of the dates and in the manner noted herein as set forth below:

 l. Section 2.1(g) of the Plan is amended to add the following parenthetical after the exclusion for non-qualified
deferred compensation 
 “(this exclusion being intended to prevent duplication and to exclude other
types of nonqualified deferred compensation, but by way of clarification not being intended to prevent Deferral Benefits from being taken from Base Salary or the add-back of amounts contributed as Deferral Benefits when Company contributions under
this Plan are calculated as provided herein)” 
 2. Section 2.1(y) of the Plan is amended effective January 1,
2013 to read as follows 
 (y) “Incentive Pay” means overtime, annual incentive cash awards from
the American Express Company 2007 Incentive Compensation Plan, and the amounts listed on Schedule B. “Incentive Pay” shall not include lump-sum severance pay, imputed income, long-term incentive pay, special awards pay, non-qualified
deferred compensation (this exclusion being intended to prevent duplication and to exclude other types of nonqualified deferred compensation, but by way of clarification not being intended to prevent Deferral Benefits from being taken from Incentive
Pay or the add-back of amounts contributed as Deferral Benefits when Company contributions under this Plan are calculated as provided herein), amounts classified hereunder as Base Salary, bonuses other than incentive pay, serial severance pay, and
Company contributions to other employee benefit plans or to fringe benefit plans. 
 3. Schedule B of the Plan is amended
effective January 1, 2013 by deleting “AEB Bonus.” 
  

							
	 Dated: 5/1/13
	 		 	 AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY

		 		 	 By:
	 	 /s/ David Karsiarz

		 		 	 Its:
	 	 SVP, Global Compensation & Benefits
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fearless International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Jeffrey Binder, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; 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: 	 	February 14, 2007 	 	 	 	By: 	 	/s/ Jeffrey Binder 	 	 	Name: 	 	Jeffrey Binder 	 	 	Title: 	 	President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          19,174
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 3,300
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    100,765
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        366,501
<ALLOWANCE>                                      5,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 505,700
<DEPOSITS>                                     418,423
<SHORT-TERM>                                     7,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              8,391
<LONG-TERM>                                     26,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        33,452
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,434
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 505,700
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 30,698
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                6,600
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   721
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                38,019
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              15,394
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,441
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           21,578
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      701
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               (138)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 18,364
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,847
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       7,265
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,265
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.29
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.67
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,950
<LOANS-PAST>                                         6
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   225
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,156
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 4,825
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      515
<RECOVERIES>                                       389
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                5,400
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,100
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          2,300


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Roberta W., Respondent, v Carlton McK., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Carlton McK., Appellant, v Eileen W. et al., Respondents. (Proceeding No. 2.)

[977 NYS2d 279]

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, and a related guardianship proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals (1) from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Katz, J.), dated May 10, 2012, under docket No. G-19295-08, which granted the petition of the maternal grandmother for her appointment as the permanent guardian of the person of the subject child, and (2), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court, also dated May 10, 2012, under docket No. V-19511-08, as, in effect, denied that branch of his petition which was for custody of the subject child.

Ordered that the order dated May 10, 2012, under docket No. G-19295-08, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated May 10, 2012, under docket No. V-19511-08, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

*730“[A]s between a parent and a nonparent, the parent has the superior right to custody that cannot be denied unless the nonparent establishes that the parent has relinquished that right due to surrender, abandonment, persistent neglect, unfitness, or other extraordinary circumstances” *(Matter of Rudy v Mazzetti,*5 AD3d 777, 777-778 [2004]; *see Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys,*40 NY2d 543, 546 [1976]; *Matter of Campo v Chapman,*24 AD3d 439 [2005]). Here, the maternal grandmother of the subject child satisfied her burden of establishing extraordinary circumstances on the basis of the evidence as to the father’s history of substance abuse and failure to comply with mental health treatment, the father’s criminal history and history of domestic violence, the father’s inability to support the child, and the grandmother’s demonstrated ability to care for the child’s extraordinary special needs, as well as the strong emotional bond that the child has developed with the grandmother *(see Matter of Cockrell v Burke,*50 AD3d 895, 896-897 [2008]; *Matter of Dellolio v Tracy,*35 AD3d 737, 738 [2006]; *Matter of Campo v Chapman,*24 AD3d at 439-440; *Matter of Koch v Andres,*299 AD2d 411, 411-412 [2002]).

Inasmuch as the Family Court is in the best position to evaluate the credibility, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its determination should be set aside only if it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record *(see Matter of Louise E.S. v W. Stephen S.,*64 NY2d 946 [1985]; *Matter of Leonard v DeGeorgeSimpson,*249 AD2d 475, 476 [1998]). Here, the Family Court’s determination that the best interests of the child require that he be placed in the permanent guardianship of the maternal grandmother had a sound and substantial basis in the record *(see Matter of Cockrell v*Burke, 50 AD3d at 897; *Matter of Dellolio v Tracy,*35 AD3d at 737-738; *Matter of Campo v Chapman,*24 AD3d at 440; *Matter of Koch v Andres,*299 AD2d at 412). Rivera, J.E, Dillon, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.
Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350   In connection with the Quarterly Report of Proper Power and Energy, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lior Segal, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to my knowledge that:  (i)  the accompanying Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Act); and  (ii)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  PROPER POWER AND ENERGY, INC.  /s/:  Lior Segal LIOR SEGAL, Chief Financial Officer   August 12, 2011