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




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AND EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(b)
AND 15d-14(b)


(Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of  Gulf Resources, Inc. on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned
do hereby 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 his or her
knowledge and belief:




(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 the operation of the
Company.




Dated:
      November 9, 2009By:
            /s
      Xiaobin LiuXiaobin
      LiuChief
      Executive Officer







Dated:
      November 9, 2009By:
            /s/
      Min LiMin
      LiChief
      Financial Officer
Exhibit 23.1




















Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





The Board of Directors


Whistler Blackcomb Holdings Inc.





We consent to the use of our audit report dated December 2, 2016, with respect to the consolidated statements of financial position of Whistler Blackcomb Holdings Inc. as at September 30, 2016 and September 30, 2015, the consolidated statements of comprehensive income, changes in equity and cash flows for the years then ended, and notes, comprising a summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatory information which are included herein.











/s/ KPMG LLP


Chartered Professional Accountants


December 8, 2016


Vancouver, Canada
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-21103 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DEMETRIO HERNANDEZ-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CR-470-1

-------------------- June 18, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender for Demetrio Hernandez-Flores has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Hernandez has received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief, but he has not filed a response . Our review of the brief filed by counsel and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the APPEAL IS
DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 447 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit the exclusion of individuals 

from service on a Federal jury on account of sexual orientation or 

gender identity. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 11, 2015 

Mrs. SHAHEEN (for herself, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, and Mrs. MURRAY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit the exclusion of individuals from service on a Federal jury on 

account of sexual orientation or gender identity. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Jury Access for Capa5 ble Citizens and Equality in Service Selection Act of 

6 2015’’ or the ‘‘Jury ACCESS Act’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 447 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM FEDERAL JURIES ON ACCOUNT 

2 OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR GENDER IDEN3 TITY PROHIBITED. 

4 Section 1862 of title 28, United States Code, is 

5 amended by inserting ‘‘sexual orientation, gender iden6 tity,’’ after ‘‘sex,’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
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 of Wisconsin Gas LLC (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2006 (the "Report"), I, Gale E. Klappa, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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 Company.

/s/GALE E. KLAPPA
M. W., MOTHER OF R.K. AND E.K.
, Appellant,

v.

GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM

, Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 1801

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 22, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. David M. Gooding , Judge

. M. W., pro se

. David Paul Krupski of the Guardian ad Litem Program

, and Ward L. Metzger of Department of Children and Families, for Appellee s

.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS

, RAY

, and OSTERHAUS

, J J

. , CONCUR.
No. 1092.

#### Metallizing Engineering Co., Inc. *v.*Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co., Inc. et al.

June 10, 1946.
EXHIBIT 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8
Nos. 333-67527, 333-51607, 333-20673, 333-01789, 333-53802, 333-53804, 333-117249, and
333-130246) of Zale Corporation of our reports dated September 20, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting of Zale Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended July 31, 2011 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

/s/ ERNST
& YOUNG LLP

Dallas,
Texas
September 20, 2011

---



QuickLinks
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,



AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO



SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Quarterly Report of Jewett-Cameron Trading Company Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended May 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Date: August 31, 2006 | Signed:     /s/ Daniel R. McDonell         
|--------------------- | -------------------------------------------
|                      | Daniel R. McDonell, Chief Financial Officer
Order entered August 25, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00073-CR

ROGER ALLEN STULCE, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380-82426-2012

ORDER

The Court DENIES appellant’s second motion to extend time to file his brief.

We ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has 

not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and 

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether 

appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the 

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 

(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is 

ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which 

may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 99.1
                                                                    ------------


     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection  with the filing of the  financial  statements of Ophthalmic
Imaging  Systems  ("Registrant")  for the  quarter  ended  March  31,  2003 (the
"Report"),   each  of  the  undersigned  hereby  certifies,  to  such  officer's
knowledge, that:

     1.   The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
          15(d) 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 Registrant.


                                                   /s/ Gil Allon
                                                   -------------------------
                                                   Gil Allon
                                                   Chief Executive Officer


                                                   /s/ Ariel Shenhar
                                                   ------------------------
                                                   Ariel Shenhar
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 2.1.7

                           CERTIFICATE OF DECREASE IN
                          AUTHORIZED AND ISSUED SHARES

     The following certificate is filed on behalf of GREENBRIAR  CORPORATION,  a
Nevada corporation, pursuant to Section 78.207 of the Nevada Revised Statutes:

     1. The current number of authorized shares of common stock, par value $0.01
per share,  before the change in capitalization was 100,000,000,  and the number
of shares of  preferred  stock,  par value $0.10 per share  before the change in
capitalization was 10,000,000.

     2. The number of  authorized  shares of common  stock,  par value $0.01 per
share, after the change in capitalization,  was 4,000,000. There is no change in
par value or in the number of authorized preferred shares.

     3. One share of new common stock, par value $0.01 per share, will be issued
for each  twenty-five  shares of old common stock,  par value $0.01  outstanding
before the change.

     4. No  fractional  shares  will  be  issued.  Cash  will be paid in lieu of
issuing fractional shares upon surrender of certificates  representing shares of
old common stock,  at the rate of $0.25 for each  one-twenty-fifth  share of new
common stock.

     5. Approval of the change by stockholders was not required nor obtained.

     6. The change is effective at 11:59 p.m. on November 30, 2001.


                                            GREENBRIAR CORPORPORATION


                                             By: /s/ Gene S. Bertcher
                                                ---------------------
                                                Gene S. Bertcher, Executive Vice
                                                President


                                             By: /s/ Oscar Smith
                                                ---------------------
                                                Oscar Smith, Secretary

STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF DALLAS


     This  instrument was  acknowledged  before me on this 27th day of November,
2001, by GENE S. BERTCHER.



                                                /s/ Celeste Byars Notary Public,
State of Texas                                  -----------------


                                                Celeste Byars
                                                -------------
                                                Printed Name of Notary
                                                My Commission Expires:  6/26/04
H. Res. 191

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

April 11 (legislative day, April 10), 2003.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany

the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 95) establishing the

congressional budget for the United States Government for

fiscal year 2004 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2003 and 2005 through 2013. All points

of order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered

as read. The conference report shall be debatable for one

hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.

Attest:

Clerk.
EXHIBIT 23






          CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                                  
                                  
                                  
As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation of our reports included in this Form 10-K into
WPS Resources Corporation's previously filed Registration
Statement Files No. 33-35050, No. 33-47172, No. 33-61991, and
No. 33-65167, and Wisconsin Public Service Corporation's
previously filed Registration Statement File No. 33-59460.



                                           ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Milwaukee, Wisconsin 
March 7, 1997                                                     

                              -114-

PAGE
<PAGE>
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 50005 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
HAROLD ARCHIE LINDSAY , III , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:16

- CR

- 143

- 1

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Harold Archie Lindsay, III, entered a conditional guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced at the bottom of the advisory guidelines range to 30 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Pursuant to his plea agreement, Lindsay reserved the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. As he did before

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 18, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-50005 Document: 00514311850 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/18/2018No. 17

- 50005

2 the district court, Lindsay contends that the search warrant obtained in his case was legally insufficient as it was bas ed on a “bare bones” affidavit. This court engages in a two

- step inquiry when reviewing a district court’s denial of a defendant’s motion to suppress when a search warrant is involved. United States v. Cherna , 184 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 1999). First, the court determines whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule announced in United States v. Leon , 468 U.S. 897 (1984), applies. Cherna , 184 F.3d at 407. If so, no further analysis is conducted and the district court’s denial of the moti on to suppress will be affirmed. Id. If the good faith exception does not apply, the court proceeds to the second step, “ensur[ing] that the magistrate had a substantial basis for . . . concluding that probable cause existed.” Id. (internal quotation ma rks and citation omitted). Although the affidavit in the instant case could have provided more information regarding details of the controlled buy, the affidavit did not contain “wholl y conclusory statements” that were “so lacking in indicia of probable c ause as to render official belief in [their] existen ce entirely unreasonable.” United States v. Satterwhite , 980 F.2d 317, 320

- 21 (5th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Given that affidavit s must be construed in a commonsense m anner, see United States v. Ventresca , 380 U.S. 102 , 108 (1965), with great deference given to a magistrate judge’s determination of probable cause, the district court did not err in finding that the affidavit in the instant case was not bare bones. See United States v. McKnight , 953 F.2d 898, 905 (5th Cir. 1992)

. As such, it is unnecessary to determine if probable cause in fact existed, because the good

- faith exception applies. See Cherna , 184 F.3d at 407. AFFIRMED. Case: 17-50005 Document: 00514311850 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/18/2018
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

GARY H. POWELL 

 v. 

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 

BOARD OF REVIEW 

 Intervenor 

PETITION OF: UNEMPLOYMENT 

COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 927 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 13th day of April, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

GRANTED. The issue as stated by petitioner is: 

Should a Commonwealth agency be required to allow a suspended 

attorney to represent a party in its hearings and proceedings? 

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s Application for Leave to File as Amicus 

Curiae in Support of Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED. Andrew J. 

Ostrowski’s Application to Intervene is DENIED. 

JOE KRENTZMAN & SONS, INC.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-50135

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Omar Sanchez-Barrera, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:20-CR-384-1

Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Omar Sanchez-Barrera appeals the within-guidelines sentence of 37 

months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release imposed 

following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation from

the United States. He argues that the enhanced sentencing range in 8 U.S.C. 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 4, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-50135 Document: 00515887887 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/04/2021
No. 21-50135

2

§ 1326(b) is unconstitutional because a prior conviction is an element of the 

offense that must be alleged in the indictment or found by a jury beyond a 

reasonable doubt. He concedes that the issue is foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but seeks to preserve it for 

further review. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for 

summary affirmance, agreeing that the issue is foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres. Alternatively, the Government requests an extension of time to file 

its brief.

In Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 226-27, the Supreme Court held 

that a prior conviction used to enhance a sentence under § 1326(b) is a 

sentencing factor, not an element of the offense. Neither Apprendi v. New 

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 476, 490 (2000), nor subsequent Supreme Court cases 

overruled Almendarez-Torres, which remains binding precedent. See United 

States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. GarzaLopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, Sanchez-Barrera’s 

sole appellate argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres. 

Because the Government’s position “is clearly right as a matter of law 

so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,” 

Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), the 

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the 

Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is 

DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 21-50135 Document: 00515887887 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/04/2021
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6426** 

WILLIAM TRAVIS NEWTON , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Arenda L. Wright Allen , District Judge. ( 2:14

- cv - 00081

- AWA

- DEM )

Submitted : August 27, 2015 Decided: October 6, 2015

Before FLOYD and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. David Bernard Hargett, HARGETT LAW, PLC, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellant. Alice Theresa Armstrong, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Vir ginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: William Travis Newton seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a c onstitutional 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 cl aims 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 procedur al ruling is debatable, and that the petition 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
Newton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingl y, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMIS SED
#### RAEDER et al. v. KAUFFMAN.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

December 8, 1902.)

No. 1,718.

In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States fot the Eastern District of Missouri.

Robert L. McLaran, William E. *1006Garvin, and James P. Dawson, for plaintiffs in error. J. E. McKeighan and M. F. Watts, for defendant in error.

Affirmed, with costs, on authority of decision on former writ of error in Kauffman v. Raeder et al., 108 Fed. 171.