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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Penn Virginia GP Holdings, L.P. (the Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William H. Shea, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of PVG GP, LLC, the general partner of the Partnership,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |                                      
|------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: July 30, 2010 |  |  |  |                                      
|                    |  | 
|                    |  |  |  | /s/ William H. Shea, Jr.             
|                    |  |  |  | William H. Shea, Jr.                 
|                    |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Report. A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

___________________________________________ 

PREMIER HEALTH CENTER, P.C., JUDSON :

G. SPRANDEL, II, D.C., BRIAN S. HICKS, :

D.C., TRI3 ENTERPRISES, LLC, BEVERLY :

HILLS SURGICAL CENTER, JEREMY :

RODGERS, D.C., and AMY O’DONNELL, :

D.C., on their own behalf and on behalf of all :

others similarly situated, and CONGRESS OF :

CHIROPRACTIC STATE ASSOCIATIONS, :

the AMERICAN CHIROPRACTIC :

ASSOCIATION, the OHIO STATE :

CHIROPRACTIC ASSOCIATION and THE :

MISSOURI STATE CHIROPRACTIC :

ASSOCIATION, in a representational capacity :

on behalf of their members, :

 : 

Plaintiffs, :

v. :

 : 

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, : CIVIL ACTION 11-425 (FSH)(PS)

UNITEDHEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., :

OPTUMHEALTH, INC., HEALTH NET OF : ORDER

THE NORTHEAST, INC., and HEALTH NET :

OF NEW YORK, INC., : 

 : 

Defendants. : 

__________________________________________: 

SALAS, DISTRICT JUDGE

For the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed herewith, 

 IT IS on this 30th Day of March 2012, 

 ORDERED that UnitedHealth Group, UnitedHealthcare Services, Inc., and OptumHealth 

Care Solutions, Inc.’s motion to dismiss—(D.E. 31)—is hereby DENIED as to all claims; and it 

is further 

Case 2:11-cv-00425-ES-JAD Document 97 Filed 03/30/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 1729
2 

 ORDERED that Defendants Health Net of the Northeast, Inc. and Health Net of New 

York, Inc.’s motion to dismiss—(D.E. 29)—is hereby GRANTED as to all claims involving 

Health Net of the Northeast, and all claims in this action against this party are dismissed without 

prejudice; and it is further 

 ORDERED that Defendants Health Net of the Northeast, Inc. and Health Net of New 

York, Inc.’s motion to dismiss—(D.E. 29)—is hereby GRANTED as to Count III against Health 

Net of New York, and this Count against this party is dismissed without prejudice for the reasons 

stated in the Opinion filed herewith. 

 ORDERED that the clerk of Court shall terminate Docket Entry Nos. 29 and 31. 

s/Esther Salas x 

Esther Salas, U.S.D.J.

Case 2:11-cv-00425-ES-JAD Document 97 Filed 03/30/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 1730
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

K-BEECH, INC. :

Plaintiff : Civil Action No. 11-3614(FSH)

v. :

JOHN DOES 1-26, : ORDER

Defendants :

This matter having come before the Court by way of plaintiff’s motion for permission to

conduct discovery before holding a conference pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) in the form of

serving subpoenas on internet service providers to obtain information about the identity of the

person/entity to whom internet protocol addresses are assigned;

and the Court having considered the submission, the claims, and governing law;

and for the reasons set forth in the Opinion delivered on the record on July 1, 2011;1

and for good cause shown,

IT IS ON THIS 1 day of July, 2011 st

ORDERED the motion for permission to conduct discovery before holding a conference

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) [ Docket No. 7] in the form of serving subpoenas on internet

service providers to obtain information about the identity of the person/entity to whom they are

assigned is granted. Service of the subpoenas shall comply with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Information obtained from the internet service providers shall only be used for the 2

A transcript of the Opinion may be obtained by contacting King Transcription Service at

1

973-237-6080.

If the internet service provider requires court-endorsement of the subpoenas, then the 2

plaintiff shall provide them to the Court to be endorsed “so ordered.”

Case 2:11-cv-03614-FSH -PS Document 8 Filed 07/01/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 97
purpose of this litigation and the plaintiff shall be prepared to provide copies of the responsive

information to parties who enter appearances in this case; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the request that this Court enter orders concerning who

bears the costs or to compel an internet service provider to comply before the subpoenas are

served is denied.

s/Patty Shwartz

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:11-cv-03614-FSH -PS Document 8 Filed 07/01/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 98
CERTIFICATIONS OF

                            CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

                                 AND PRINCIPAL

            ACCOUNTING OFFICER PURSUANT TO U.S.C. SECTION 302 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, L. B. (Brad) Clarke, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Organetix, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and have:

      a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is
      being prepared;

      b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
      annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

      c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness
      of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of
      the Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

      a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
      controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
      registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

      b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
      controls; and

6. I have indicated in this annual report whether there were significant changes
in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,
including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses.

Date: April 13, 2004


/s/ L. B. (Brad) Clarke
-----------------------------------
Name: L. B. (Brad) Clarke
Title: Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting 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 Quarterly Report of Penn Virginia GP Holdings, L.P. (the
Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, A. James Dearlove, Chief Executive Officer of PVG GP, LLC, the
general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|      |  |                  |  |                        
|----- |  | ---------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: |  | November 1, 2007 |  |                        
|      |  |                 
|      |  |                  |  | /s/ A. James Dearlove  
|      |  |                  |  | A. James Dearlove      
|      |  |                  |  | Chief Executive Officer

This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Report. A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT
32.2



CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
connection with the Annual Report of Chanticleer Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended
December 31, 2015 (the “Report”), I, Eric S. Lederer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
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:



(i)
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(ii)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.



| | /s/
    Eric S. Lederer    
| | ---------------------------
| | Eric
    S. Lederer        
| | Chief
    Financial Officer
| | April
    26, 2016
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Brentnol A. Britton, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 897]

*894The defendant’s contention that the judgment of conviction should have been vacated based on newly-discovered evidence is without merit. The hearing court found that the testimony regarding the alleged new evidence proffered by the defendant was not credible. The credibility determination of the hearing court, with its particular advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses, is entitled to great deference on appeal (see *People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]) and will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous *(see People v Francis,*44 AD3d 788, 789 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 1033 [2008]; *People v Stevens,*43 AD3d 1088, 1089 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 1039 [2008]; *People v Jamison,*188 AD2d 551 [1992]). We discern no basis in the record to disturb the court’s determination in this case.

Similarly unavailing is the defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel. The evidence presented by the defendant failed to demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel’s allegedly deficient conduct *(see People v Caban,*5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]; *People v Jordan,*44 AD3d 875 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 1035 [2008]). The evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case, viewed in totality as of the time of representation, reveal that trial counsel provided meaningful representation *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction. Mastro, J.P., Covello, Dickerson and Eng, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 136 (Friday, July 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 34748]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16988]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13495-000]


FFP Project 85, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application 
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and 
Competing Applications

July 10, 2009.
    On May 22, 2009, FFP Project 85, LLC filed an application for a 
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, 
proposing to study the feasibility of the Missouri Sister Island 
Hydrokinetic Project, to be located on the Mississippi River, in 
Mississippi County, Missouri and Alexander County, Illinois.
    The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant 
the permit holder priority to file a license application during the 
permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder 
to perform any land disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands 
or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed Missouri Sister Island Hydrokinetic Project consists 
of: (1) 4, 118 proposed 40 kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a 
total installed capacity of 164.72 megawatts; (2) a 5.5-mile-long, 69 
kilovolt transmission line; and (3) appurtenant facilities. The 
proposed Missouri Sister Island Hydrokinetic Project would have an 
average annual generation of 721 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Ramya Swaminathan, Vice President of 
Development, Free Flow Power Corporation, 33 Commercial Street, 
Gloucester, MA 01930; phone: (978) 226-1531.
    FERC Contact: Kim Carter, 202-502-6486.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project, including a copy of 
the application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of 
Commission's Web site at  http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. 
Enter the docket number (P-13495) in the docket number field to access 
the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16988 Filed 7-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-11546

Summary Calendar

 

THEODORE A OSBORNE, SR

Petitioner - Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Respondent - Appellee

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:01-CV-1064-P

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

June 18, 2002

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Theodore Osborne, Sr., federal prisoner # 98686-131, appeals

the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in

which he raised challenges to the jurisdiction of the Parole

Commission to revoke his parole in 2001. On appeal he argues

that he was denied a hearing within five years of initially being

released on parole to determine whether parole should continue in

accordance with now repealed 18 U.S.C. § 4211(c)(1). He also

argues that the evidence at trial constructively amended his
No. 01-11546

-2-

bank-robbery charge in his indictment, that his attorney was

ineffective, and that there was a double jeopardy violation

resulting from his convictions of armed bank robbery and use of a

firearm during the offense. 

Osborne’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, a

double jeopardy violation, and a constructive amendment to the

indictment arise under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and not 28 U.S.C. § 2241,

and he has not shown that he satisfied the requirements of the

savings clause to raise these claims in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241

proceeding. See Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir.

2000); Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 900, 904

(5th Cir. 2001). His claim that his parole ended five years

after he was initially released on parole because there was no

hearing in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 4211(c)(1) to determine

whether supervision should continue is without merit. See Penix

v. United States Parole Comm’n., 979 F.2d 386, 388-89 (5th Cir.

1992). 

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 of Salary.com, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2010
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Paul R. Daoust, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Bryce Chicoyne, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our best knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This certification is being provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is not to be deemed a part of the Report,
nor is it to be deemed to be filed for any purpose whatsoever.

Date: June 29, 2010



/s/ Paul R. DaoustPaul R. Daoust
President and Chief Executive Officer


Date: June 29, 2010



/s/ Bryce ChicoyneBryce Chicoyne Senior Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-41053

c/w No. 11-41054

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RUPERTO VALLE-PORCALLO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:06-CR-67-1

USDC No. 2:05-CR-626-1

Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ruperto Valle-Porcallo appeals the sentence imposed following convictions

for transporting an illegal alien and failing to appear for a pretrial conference in

2005. Valle-Porcallo does not contest the two-level increase in his guidelines

offense level for obstruction of justice based on his flight and fugitive status,

which resulted in his conviction for failing to appear. However, he argues that

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 9, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk
No. 11-41053

c/w No. 11-41054

2

the court erred by denying him credit for acceptance of responsibility based on

the obstruction enhancement where he pleaded guilty promptly after being

apprehended and was already sufficiently punished for fleeing.

We will affirm a decision not to award a reduction for acceptance of

responsibility “unless it is without foundation, a standard of review more

deferential than the clearly erroneous standard.” United States v.

Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 211 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). “A defendant who enters a guilty plea is not entitled to an

adjustment under this section as a matter of right.” U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment.

(n.3). Moreover, absent extraordinary circumstances, an enhancement for

obstruction of justice “indicates that the defendant has not accepted

responsibility for his criminal conduct.” Id., comment. (n.4); see Juarez-Duarte,

513 F.3d at 211. Valle-Porcallo has shown no extraordinary circumstances

warranting a reduction for acceptance of responsibility in the face of an

uncontested increase for obstruction of justice. See § 3E1.1, comment. (n.4);

United States v. Lujan-Sauceda, 187 F.3d 451, 451-52 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding

that even voluntary surrender after flight did not create extraordinary

circumstances warranting credit for acceptance of responsibility). The district

court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodney Lamont ALLEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-7435.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 13, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 18, 2012.

Rodney Lamont Allen, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*233PER CURIAM:

Rodney Lamont Allen appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Allen,*No. 1:07-cr-00032-MR-1 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 10, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*