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

CEO CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Westway
Group, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |  |  |        |  |                                                                   
|---------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------
|                       |  |  |  |        |  | /s/ Peter J.M. Harding                                            
|                       |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Peter J.M. Harding                                                
|                       |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and Director
|                       |  |  |  |        | 
|Dated: August 17, 2009 |  |  |  |        |  |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0450

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

JOHN RAYMOND WELZEL,

Defendant and Appellant

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including September 20, 2024, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 15 2024

08/15/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0450
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 13, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-11220

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

ALEXIS ADRIAN GUZMAN-GONZALEZ

Defendant - Appellant

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:04-CR-204-ALL-H

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

Before KING, DeMOSS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alexis Adrian Guzman-Gonzalez appeals his conviction of one

charge of illegal reentry into the United States and the

resulting sentence of 54 months in prison and a two-year term of

supervised release. He first challenges the constitutionality of

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). Guzman-Gonzalez’s constitutional challenge

is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S.

224, 235 (1998). Although Guzman-Gonzalez contends that

Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of
No. 04-11220

-2-

the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly

rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres

remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268,

276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). GuzmanGonzalez properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in

light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises

it here to preserve it for further review. 

Guzman-Gonzalez also argues that his sentence should be

vacated and remanded because the district court sentenced him

under the mandatory Guidelines scheme held unconstitutional in

United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Because the

district court sentenced Guzman-Gonzalez under a mandatory

Guidelines regime, it committed Fanfan error. See United States

v. Walters, 418 F.3d 461, 463 (5th Cir. 2005). When a Fanfan

error “is preserved in the district court by an objection, we

will ordinarily vacate the sentence and remand, unless we can say

the error is harmless.” United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511,

520 n.9 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). 

The Government concedes that Guzman-Gonzalez’s objection,

which was grounded in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004),

was sufficient to preserve his Fanfan claim and that the harmless

error standard of review applies. We conclude that the

Government has not met its burden of showing beyond a reasonable

doubt that the district court would have imposed the same
No. 04-11220

-3-

sentence absent the error. See United States v. Garza, 429 F.3d

165, 170-71 (5th Cir. 2005). We therefore vacate GuzmanGonzalez’s sentence and remand for resentencing. 

CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; CASE REMANDED.
EXHIBIT 31.2  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  CERTIFICATION  I, Barry C. Nuss, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of RathGibson, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this Quarterly Report;  4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report, based on such evaluation;  c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.   Date:  June 11, 2007/s/ Barry C. NussBarry C. NussChief Financial Officer
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 10-K of Sonus Networks, Inc. (the "Company") for the period
ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Raymond P. Dolan, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



Date:
March 10, 2011

/s/ RAYMOND P. DOLANRaymond P. DolanPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)


---



QuickLinks
July 31, 2012

The Honorable Douglas E. Arpert

United States Magistrate Judge

Clarkson S. Fisher Fed. Building & U.S. Courthouse

402 East State Street

Trenton, NJ 08608

Re: Jacobson v. Synthes, Inc., et al.

Docket No. 11-CV-01160 (AET) (DEA)

Dear Judge Arpert:

As Your Honor is aware, our office represents the plaintiff in connection with the 

above-captioned matter. At this time, we write to request that the time to supply our liability 

report from Dr. Pattanayak be extended until this Friday, August 3, 2012. Dr. Pattanayak has 

inspected the surgical plate involved in this case and will be issuing a report regarding his 

findings. Pursuant to Your Honor’s most recent Order, this report is due today. I apologize 

to the Court for the lateness of this request, however, we were not advised until this afternoon 

that Dr. Pattanayak has again taken ill and is unable to provide his report today.

Upon learning this information I contacted Mr. Covey for consent to enlarge the time 

to supply Dr. Pattanayak’s report. Kindly, Mr. Covey consented to our request. Mr. Covey 

advises that he does not anticipate this extension impacting the timing requirements for the 

production of his expert reports. However, in the event they do, Mr. Covey reserves the right 

to make an appropriate application to Your Honor, with which we have no objection should 

such application become necessary.

Also, as a status update, plaintiff’s report from Dr. Decter has been provided. Dr. 

Pattanayak’s report is the only outstanding report owed to defense counsel.

Therefore, it is requested that the time to provide Dr. Pattanayak’s report be extended 

to August 3, 2012. As all parties consent to this request and no prejudice will result, it is 

respectfully requested that this extension request be granted.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this application.

Case 3:11-cv-01160-AET-DEA Document 21 Filed 07/31/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 103
Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Erik Anderson

EA:klc ERIK ANDERSON

cc: David Covey, Esq.

Case 3:11-cv-01160-AET-DEA Document 21 Filed 07/31/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 104
Case 2:10-cv-03984-FSH -PS   Document 25    Filed 09/24/10   Page 1 of 2 PageID: 496

Case 2:10-cv-03984-FSH -PS   Document 25    Filed 09/24/10   Page 2 of 2 PageID: 497
#### CAMPBELL v. AMERICAN FABRICS CO. et al.

No. 1412.

District Court, E. D. New York.

Dec. 4, 1940.

Geist & Netter, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Frederick S. Duncan, of New York City, for defendant American Fabrics Co.

MOSCOWITZ, District Judge.

This motion is made to strike plaintiff’s demand for a trial by jury upon the ground that is was made too late. Defendant, the American Fabrics Company, served its answer on October 7, 1940, which, after denying the material allegations of the complaint, set forth certain defenses. In addition the answer set forth a counterclaim. The reply to this counterclaim was served on October 29, 1940. On November 4, 1940, the plaintiff served a demand for trial by jury of the issues raised by the answer of the American Fabrics Company with respect to the first two causes of action set forth in the complaint.

Rule 38 (b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, requires a demand for a jury trial with respect to any issue triable of right by a jury, to be made “not later than 10 days after the service of the last pleading directed to such issue.” Here the issues with respect to which a jury trial is sought are those raised by the answer, and as to which the answer is the last pleading. The demand for a jury trial was, therefore, not timely, and was, pursuant to Rule 38 (d), waived by the plaintiff.

While it is not the duty of the Court to relieve a party of his errors, it was not the purpose of the Rules of Civil Procedure to make procedure the master of substantial rights. It would appear that the demand in the case at bar was made under the mistaken assumption that it would be *503timely if made within (10) days after the last pleading. As pointed out above, the plaintiff was mistaken in that construction. In fact were his interpretation of the Rule followed, it would mean that a jury demand would be timely if made within ten (10) days after the service of a pleading by an intervening party, even though that time long post-dated the joinder of issue by the original parties. A mistake, it was however, as indicated by the prompt service of a jury demand within six (6) days after the reply.

Under the circumstances of this case, therefore, the Court feels that a proper case has been presented for the exercise of the discretion granted to it by Rule 39 (b). An attorney’s excusable error of construction on a new question of procedure should not be permitted to prejudice his client’s substantial rights. In the exercise of the Court’s discretion, therefore, a jury trial is granted as requested by the plaintiff.

Settle order.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1358 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1358

      To amend title 13, United States Code, to require that any 
 questionnaire used in determining the decennial census of population 
shall contain an option for respondents to indicate citizenship status.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 8, 2019

  Mr. Daines introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To amend title 13, United States Code, to require that any 
 questionnaire used in determining the decennial census of population 
shall contain an option for respondents to indicate citizenship status.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Citizens Count Census Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. CITIZENSHIP STATUS ON CENSUS QUESTIONNAIRES.

    Section 141 of title 13, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h); and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following:
    ``(g) In conducting the 2020 decennial census and each decennial 
census thereafter, the Secretary shall include in any questionnaire 
distributed or otherwise used for the purpose of determining the total 
population by States a checkbox or other similar option for respondents 
to indicate whether the respondent is a citizen or national of the 
United States.''.
                                 <all>
```
Case 3:11-mc-00022-AET Document 3 Filed 04/24/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 15
Case 3:11-mc-00022-AET Document 3 Filed 04/24/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 16
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION




QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 4.2    
  


 
 

CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
  TO THE
  RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION    
  


    Michaels
Stores, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, 


    DOES
HEREBY CERTIFY: 


    First:  The Board of Directors of Michaels Stores, Inc., duly adopted resolutions setting forth a proposed amendment to
the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the corporation, declaring the amendment to be advisable and directing the amendment to be considered at the 1998 Annual Meeting of the Stockholders. The
resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is as follows: 



    Resolved, that the Board hereby adopts, approves and declares advisable a proposal to amend the Certificate to increase the authorized
Common Stock of the Company from 50 million shares to 150 million shares which amendment (the "Amendment") would be in substantially the form as follows: 



"Paragraph
One of Article Four of the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 



The
aggregate number of shares of all the classes of stock which the Corporation shall have authority to issue is 152,000,000, consisting of 150,000,000 shares of Common Stock (the "Common Stock")
having a par value of $.10 per share, and 2,000,000 shares of Preferred Stock (the "Preferred Stock") having a par value of $.10 per share." 




    Second: At the 1998 Annual Meeting of the Stockholders of the corporation, duly called and held on September 22, 1998 upon
notice in accordance with Section 222 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, the necessary number of shares as required by statute were voted in favor of the amendment. 



    Third: The amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware. 




    IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, Michaels Stores, Inc. has caused this certificate to be signed by Mark V. Beasley, its Secretary, on November 13, 1998. 



	 	 	By:	 	/s/ MARK V. BEASLEY   
 Mark V. Beasley













QuickLinks



Exhibit 4.2


CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO THE RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
Case 2:11-cv-00525-CCC -JAD Document 35 Filed 06/27/11 Page 1 of 19 PageID: 194
Case 2:11-cv-00525-CCC -JAD Document 35 Filed 06/27/11 Page 2 of 19 PageID: 195
Case 2:11-cv-00525-CCC -JAD Document 35 Filed 06/27/11 Page 3 of 19 PageID: 196
Case 2:11-cv-00525-CCC -JAD Document 35 Filed 06/27/11 Page 4 of 19 PageID: 197
Case 2:11-cv-00525-CCC -JAD Document 35 Filed 06/27/11 Page 5 of 19 PageID: 198
Case 2:11-cv-00525-CCC -JAD Document 35 Filed 06/27/11 Page 6 of 19 PageID: 199
Case 2:11-cv-00525-CCC -JAD Document 35 Filed 06/27/11 Page 7 of 19 PageID: 200
Case 2:11-cv-00525-CCC -JAD Document 35 Filed 06/27/11 Page 8 of 19 PageID: 201
Case 2:11-cv-00525-CCC -JAD Document 35 Filed 06/27/11 Page 9 of 19 PageID: 202
Case 2:11-cv-00525-CCC -JAD Document 35 Filed 06/27/11 Page 10 of 19 PageID: 203
Case 2:11-cv-00525-CCC -JAD Document 35 Filed 06/27/11 Page 11 of 19 PageID: 204
Case 2:11-cv-00525-CCC -JAD Document 35 Filed 06/27/11 Page 12 of 19 PageID: 205
Case 2:11-cv-00525-CCC -JAD Document 35 Filed 06/27/11 Page 13 of 19 PageID: 206
Case 2:11-cv-00525-CCC -JAD Document 35 Filed 06/27/11 Page 14 of 19 PageID: 207
Case 2:11-cv-00525-CCC -JAD Document 35 Filed 06/27/11 Page 15 of 19 PageID: 208
Case 2:11-cv-00525-CCC -JAD Document 35 Filed 06/27/11 Page 16 of 19 PageID: 209
Case 2:11-cv-00525-CCC -JAD Document 35 Filed 06/27/11 Page 17 of 19 PageID: 210
Case 2:11-cv-00525-CCC -JAD Document 35 Filed 06/27/11 Page 18 of 19 PageID: 211
Case 2:11-cv-00525-CCC -JAD Document 35 Filed 06/27/11 Page 19 of 19 PageID: 212
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

_____________________

No. 11-20881

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff ! Appellee

v.

JORGE CABECERA RODRIGUEZ, also known as Jorge Cebecera, also

known as Jorge Paul Cabecera, also known as Jorge P. Cabecera,

Defendant ! Appellant

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas, Houston

__________________________

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion October 3, 2012, 5 Cir., 2012, 689 F.3d 220)

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, KING, JOLLY, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH,

DENNIS, CLEMENT, PRADO, OWEN, ELROD, SOUTHWICK, HAYNES,

GRAVES and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

A member of the court having requested a poll on the petition for

rehearing en banc, and a majority of the circuit judges in regular active

service and not disqualified having voted in favor,

It is ordered that this cause shall be reheard by the court en banc

without oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify

a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 29, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T B L AN C A R OS A V I L L AT OR O, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 74780 A ge nc yN o. A 092- 631- 298 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d A pr i l5, 2010 ** B efo re: R Y M E R , M cK E O W N , an dP A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. B l a nc aR os aV i l l a t or o, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of E l S a l va dor , pe t i t i ons f or r e v ie w o f

th e B o ar do f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ ( “B I A ” ) o r d e rd e n y in g h e rm o tio n to r e o p e n e x c lu s io n p r o c e e d in g s . O u rju r is d ic tio n is g o v e rn e db y8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . 

# FI LED APR14 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS07- 74780 2 W e r e vi e w f

orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the de ni a l of am ot i on t o r e ope n, a nd r e vi e w de n o v o q u e s tio n s o f

law . I tu rr i b a rr i a v . I

NS , 3 2 1 F .3 d8 8 9 , 8 9 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . W e d e n yi n p arta n dd i s m i s s i n p artth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T he B IA di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng V i l l at oro’ s m ot i on t o reopen be c aus e the m ot i on w a s f i l e d m or e than e l e ve n y e ar s a f t e rthe B I A ’ s J anua ry3, 1 9 9 6 , o r d e rd is m is s in g th e u n d e r ly in g ap p e a l, se e 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 2( c ) ( 2) , a nd V i l l a t or o f

a i l e d t o de m ons tr a t e e i the rtha tar e gul a t orye xc e pt i on t o the f i l i ng d e a d lin e ap p lie d , s e e id . § 1 00 3. 2(c) (3), or thatshe a ct ed w i th the du e di l i gence r e q u ir e df

o re q u itab le to llin g , s e e I tu rr ib a rr ia , 321 F . 3d a t897 ( e qui t abl e t ol l i ng a va i l abl e w he r e “ pe t i t i one ri s pr e ve nt e d f r om f i l i ng be c aus e of

de c e pt i on, f

r aud, or error, as l on g as the pet i t i on erac t s w i th d ue di l i gence”) . W e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew V i l l at oro’ s c on t ent i on un der M a t te ro f N-B- , 2 2 I . & N . D e c . 5 9 0 ( B I A 1 9 9 9 ) , b e c au s e s h e f a ile dto r a is e it b e f

o r e th e B I A . See B a rr o n v . A s h c r o

ft , 35 8 F . 3d 67 4, 67 8 (9th C i r. 20 04 ). V i l l at oro’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art.