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

 

 

WHOLEHEALTH PRODUCTS, INC.

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 Wholehealth Products, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period  ended February 28, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph Arcaro, Principal  Executive  Officer of the Company, certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.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 Company.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Joseph Arcaro and will be retained by Wholehealth Products, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

 

 Dated: October 5, 2012

 

By: /s/ Joseph Arcaro

Joseph Arcaro

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)

EXHIBIT 32.2

 

 

WHOLEHEALTH PRODUCTS, INC.

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 Wholehealth Products, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q  for the period  ended February 28, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph Arcaro, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.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 Company.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Joseph Arcaro and will be retained by Wholehealth Products, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

 

Dated: October 5, 2012

By: /s/ Joseph Arcaro

Joseph Arcaro 

Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Shermen WSC Acquisition Corp.(the “Company”) hereby certifies that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
|                            | /s/ Francis P.  Jenkins, Jr. |
|---------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|                            | Name:                             | Francis P.  Jenkins, Jr. |
|                            | Title:                            | Chairman, Chief  Executive Officer and |
|                            |                              | Director (Principal  Executive Officer) |
|                            |                              |   |
| Dated:  May 15,  2008 |                              |   |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sidney Kenneth MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-7518.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 13, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 18, 2012.

Sidney Kenneth Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sidney Kenneth Mitchell seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting his motion for reconsideration of the court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a reduction of sentence and reducing his sentence under Amendment 715 to the Sentencing Guidelines.* We deny Mitchell’s motion to appoint counsel and dismiss the appeal as moot because Mitchell was released from custody while this action was pending. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*

*

 Although the district court reduced Mitchell’s sentence on reconsideration, the court did not reduce his sentence to the extent he requested in his motion.
#### In the Matter of Adonis P., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Maria M., Appellant; Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent, et al., Respondent.

[822 NYS2d 510]

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Jody Adams, J.), entered on or about October 25, 2004, in proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act, article 10, which, to the extent appealed from, is premised upon a fact-finding determination of neglect, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of neglect as to the subject child is supported by a preponderance of the evidence *(see*Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]) showing that respondent-appellant inflicted excessive corporal punishment (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; *Matter of Alena O.,*220 AD2d 358, 360 [1995]). Evaluation of the testimony given by appellant’s expert was for the factfinder, and there is no basis on this record to disturb its determination. The out-of-court statements by the child were sufficiently corroborated *(see*
      *406
      *Matter of Nicole V.,*71 NY2d 112, 118-119 [1987]; *Matter of Nicole H.,*12 AD3d 182 [2004]). Concur—Buckley, EJ., Mazzarelli, Williams, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6765

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

OMAR MARTINEZ, a/k/a Carlos Abram Valdez-Salazar,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District 

Judge. (2:12-cr-00094-RGD-DEM-1)

Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 24, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Omar Martinez, Appellant Pro Se. V. Kathleen Dougherty, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Omar Martinez seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

granting his motion to reconsider in part and denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) 

(2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable 

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the 

constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Martinez has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of 

appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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 Housing and Urban Development

          - [Docket No. FR-5300-N-27]

# AGENCY:

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, HUD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        Through this notice, HUD announces the availability on its Web site of the application information, submission deadlines, funding criteria, and other requirements for the FY2009 Tribal Colleges and Universities Program NOFA. This NOFA makes approximately $5 million available to assist Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCU) to build, expand, renovate, and equip their own facilities, and to expand the role of the TCUs into the community through the provision of needed services such as health programs, job training, and economic development activities. The notice providing information regarding the application process, funding criteria and eligibility requirements is available on the HUD Web site at                         *http://www.hud.gov/​offices/​adm/​grants/​fundsavail.cfm.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For information concerning the Tribal Colleges and Universities Program, contact Sherone Ivey, Office of University Partnerships, Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 8226, Washington DC 20410; telephone 202-402-4200 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with speech or hearing impairments may access this telephone number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service during working hours at 800-877-8339.

Dated: June 9, 2009.

Jean Lin Pao,

General Deputy Assistant Secretary for  Policy Development and Research.

[FR Doc. E9-15560 Filed 6-26-09; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 7/16/2015 8:32:00 AM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
J. S33027/15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

:

SOPHANA SOVANN, : No. 1230 EDA 2014

:

 Appellant :

Appeal from the PCRA Order, April 4, 2014,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No. CP-51-CR-0012793-2008

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. DONOHUE AND LAZARUS, JJ. 

CONCURRING MEMORANDUM STATEMENT BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.:

FILED JULY 23, 2015

I join in the Majority’s determination to remand for a Grazier hearing 

in the case. My concurrence is only as to the Majority’s determination that 

there was a procedural misstep in this court with respect to appellant’s 

pro se status. I write solely to clarify what I believe is the proper procedure 

followed by this court in such matters.

If a pro se notice of appeal is filed in the trial court and forwarded to 

this court for creation of a docket, the Prothonotary’s Office dockets the 

notice to begin the appeal process. Especially in PCRA matters, which very 

often involve serial petitions where there is no right to counsel, there is 

nothing to indicate to this court, on the face of the notice, that the pro se

was represented by counsel below.
J. S33027/15

- 2 -

On occasion, upon docketing statement review or the filing of some 

application for relief by an appellant signaling the representation issue or the 

entry of appearance by counsel in this court, the Prothonotary or Central 

Legal Staff will, in fact, discover the problem and bring it to the attention of 

a motion’s judge for action. However, if such review is not triggered, the 

appeal is treated as a pro se matter, and the briefing schedule and all 

additional correspondence are sent directly to the pro se litigant.

Frequently, as happened in this case, it is the merits panel that 

ultimately discovers, upon review of the certified record, counsel’s 

abandonment or failure to enter an appearance and orders appropriate 

action.

Hence, I agree in all respects with the Majority’s resolution of this 

case, but for its suggestion that the administrative operations of this court 

should be faulted for treating appellant as pro se based on the information 

available.

Judge Lazarus joins this Concurring Memorandum Statement.
@misc{1209231,
  author = {John McGuire and Lisa Warfield},
  title = {2023 OWM Annual Analysis},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-07-06 16:07:14},
  publisher = {https://www.nist.gov/pml/owm/publications/owm-technical-analysis},
  language = {en},
}
# Fourth Court of Appeals
**Sa n Antonio, Texas** 

December 6, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00216

- CR

Luis Antonio ARROYO

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2018CR5532 Honorable Laura Lee Parker, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

After we granted Appellant’s first and second motion s for extension s of time to file the brief, A ppellant’s brief was due on Novem ber 2 7 , 2019

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(a). After the
twice

- extended due date

, Appellant filed a third motion for a twenty

- day extension of time to file
the brief

. Appellant’s motion is GRANTED ; the brief is due on Dece mber 1 7 , 2019

.
Any furth er motion for extension of time to file Appellant’s brief will be disfavored.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 6th day of December, 2019

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
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 Northeast Auto Acceptance Corp. (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, William Solko, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of the Registrant, certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
the best of my knowledge:








(1)
            The
      Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32, fully
      complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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
      Registrant.







Dated:
      August 20, 2010
                /s/
      William SolkoWilliam
      Solko
                  Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Stanley, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscalquarter ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Philip O. Nolan, Chairman,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Brian J. Clark, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)          TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly represents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ PHILIP O. NOLAN                             |   |
|-------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Philip O. Nolan                                 |
| Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer |
| February 12, 2007                               |
|                                            |
| /s/ BRIAN J. CLARK                              |   |
| Brian J. Clark                                  |
| Chief Financial Officer                         |
| February 12, 2007                               |

 

----
MANDATE

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00042-CV

Valerus Compression Services, LP, 

Valerus Compression Services 

Management LLC, TPG Capital LLC, 

TPG V VE, LP, TPG VI VE, LP, and 

Scott Magzen, Appellants

v.

James J. Woodcock, C&J Industries, 

Inc., Defined Benefit Trust, and Others 

Similarly Situated, Appellees

Appealed from the 165th District Court 

of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 2013-

69580). Memorandum Opinion 

delivered by Justice Wise. Justices 

McCally and Brown also participating.

TO THE 165TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals on May 7, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse 

your judgment was determined. Our Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellees, James J. Woodcock, C&J 

Industries, Inc., Defined Benefit Trust, and Others Similarly Situated, signed, January 7, 2014, 

was heard on the transcript of the record. The record shows that the judgment is not final. We 

therefore order the appeal DISMISSED.

We order appellants, Valerus Compression Services, LP, Valerus Compression Services 

Management LLC, TPG Capital LLC, TPG V VE, LP, TPG VI VE, LP, and Scott Magzen 

jointly and severally, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this 

behalf and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Kem Thompson Frost, Chief Justice of our Fourteenth Court of 

Appeals, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Houston, July 21, 2015.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00354-CR

Brandon Jay Douthitt

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 297th District Court

of Tarrant County (1262222D)

August 29, 2013

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
PEGGY A. MORRIS, CSR-RPR 

PO Box 324 

Mr. Christopher Knowles, Clerk 

Court of Appeals 

Third District of Texas 

P. 0. Box 12547 

Austin, Texas 78711-2547 

In Re: 03-15-00324-CV 

Trial Court No. 263,324-E 

Jean-Michel Guerin vs. Tina Guerin 

Dear Mr. Knowles: 

Belton, Texas 76513 

(254) 933-5788 

July 24, 2015 

On Thursday, July 23, 2015, around 3:00p.m. I received an email informing me that 

Mr. Guerin has filed an appeal in the above-referenced cause. 

I understand that the due date for me to file the court reporter's record was on June 29, 2015. 

Seeing as how I was only made aware of this appeal yesterday, I am respectfully requesting 

that I be granted an extension of 30 days in order to prepare the record. There were multiple 

hearings that were heard in this case, so due to that, and the fact that I do have other 

reporting responsibilities and duties, I ask that the extension be granted.
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - June 2005

Benefit payments June 2005 June 2004 

Regular Retirement 

and Survivor Benefits 

Total 

Retired employ

Spouses and d

Widow(er)s - a

Other survivors 

ees 

ivorced spouses 

ged and disabled 

22,369,000 

90,974,000 

155,027,000 

$764,155,000 

495,785,000 

22,187,000 

89,707,000 

155,726,000 

$750,399,000 

482,688,000 

Average under 

Being paid Awarded in Social Security 

Monthly benefits end of month month June 2005 

Number Average1 Number Average1 Being Paid Awarded 

Total 598,800 ......... 2,400 ......... ......... .........

Regular employee annuities, total 284,200 $1,722 1,000 $2,246 ......... .........

 Age 200,300 1,682 2 400 2 2,773 $959 3 $1,082

 Disability, Full Retirement Age and Over 34,600 1,533 ......... ......... ......... .........

 Disability, Under Full Retirement Age 49,300 2,018 400 2,242 897 967 

Spouses and divorced spouses 140,300 640 700 698 465 332 

Widow(er)s--aged and disabled 146,600 1,056 600 1,427 909 741 

Widowed mothers and fathers 1,000 1,363 4/ 1,560 692 692 

Widow(er)s--remarried and divorced 14,700 700 100 779 5/ 5/ 

Children 12,000 789 4/ 1,103 627 617 

Other survivors 100 751 ......... ......... ......... .........

 Benefit payments 

Being paid 

end of month 

Awarded 

in month 

Supplemental 

Employee 

Annuities 

June 

2005 

$5,192,000 

June 

2004 

$5,300,000 

Number 

123,700 

Average 

$42 400 

Number 

$41 

Average 

1

Railroad retirement benefits shown are net of reduction for social security benefit entitlement. 

2

For employees retiring directly from the railroad industry with full age annuity (their years of service averaged 35); some 200

 other age annuities were awarded in the month. 

3

For men aged 65 or over insured on regular basis. 

4

Fewer than 50. 

5

Remarried and divorced widow(er)s included with aged and disabled widow(er)s and widowed mothers and fathers. 

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited) and are partly estimated. Detail may not add to totals due to rounding 

Regular retirement and survivor benefit payments total includes hospital insurance benefits for services in Canada. 

(Over) 
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - (Continued) 

June 2005 

Unemployment and Sickness Benefits 

Average payment 

Number of beneficiaries 

during month 

Per 2-week 

registration period

 Per

 full week 

Unemployment 1,800 $474 $273 

Sickness 5,300 

June 2005 

487 

Benefit payments 

278 

June 2004 

Unemployment

Total 

947,000 

$3,028,000 $3,696,000

1,900,000 

Sickness 2,080,000 1,797,000 

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited). Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

 Recycled

 Paper 

Published by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board 

Bureau of the Actuary