alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION**     The undersigned officer of DATATRAK International, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify,to such officer’s knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1. the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005(the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  2. the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, andfor, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.        Dated: August 12, 2005 /s/ Jeffrey A. Green   Jeffrey A. Green   Chief Executive Officer
### UNITED STATES NAVY

- MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

J. R. MCFARLANE, M.C. HOLIFIELD, J.S. SMITH

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

CODY S. WEIR

PRIVATE (E

- 1), U.S. MARINE CORPS

NMCCA 201400094

SPECIAL COURT

- MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 5 November 2013

. Military Judge: Col J.K. Carberry, USMC

. Convening Authority: Commanding Officer, 3d Battalion, 3d

Marines, 3d Marine Division (

- )(Rein), MCBH Kaneohe Bay, HI

. Staff Judge Advocate's Recommen dation: LtCol K.T. Carlisle

,

USMC

. For Appellant: Maj Emmett S. Collazo, USMCR.

For Appellee: Mr. Brian K. Keller , Esq

.

31 July 2014

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

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

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without

assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as

approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of

Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 33.2b

 

|        |                                                                                        |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                   |
|        | 260 Interstate North Circle, SE

Atlanta, GA 30339 

T 770.763-4000 

www.assurant.com |

 

February 13, 2020

REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH §1122 (d)(2)(vi), §1122(d)(4)(xi) and §1122(d)(4)(xii) of REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2019 TO DECEMBER 31, 2019

American Security Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc. (collectively, the “Asserting Party”) is responsible for assessing compliance for the period of January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019 (the “Reporting Period”) with the servicing criteria set forth in §1122(d)(2)(vi), §1122(d)(4)(xi) and §1122(d)(4)(xii) of Title 17, §229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations, (the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”) which the Asserting Party has concluded are applicable to the insurance escrow servicing activities it performs with respect to all mortgage backed securities transactions that were registered after January 1, 2006 with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Platform Transactions”). The Asserting Party used the criteria set forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess the compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform Transaction.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Reporting Period.

American Security Insurance Company Standard Guaranty Insurance Company TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc.

|                                                        |
|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                   |
| /s/ Michael Campbell                                   |
| By: Michael Campbell                                   |
| President of American Security Insurance Company       |
| And Standard Guaranty Insurance Company, and           |
| Sr. Vice President of TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc. |

 

 

Date:  February 13, 2020
IIA 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 1 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative 

to limiting the number of terms that a Member of Congress may serve. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 6, 2015 

Mr. VITTER (for himself, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. LEE, Mr. RUBIO, 

Mr. CRUZ, Mrs. FISCHER, Mr. SASSE, Mr. PERDUE, and Mr. DAINES) 

introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States relative to limiting the number of terms that 

a Member of Congress may serve. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

9 by the Congress: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•SJ 1 IS 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. No person who has served 3 terms as 

3 a Representative shall be eligible for election to the House 

4 of Representatives. For purposes of this section, the elec5 tion of a person to fill a vacancy in the House of Rep6 resentatives shall be included as 1 term in determining 

7 the number of terms that such person has served as a Rep8 resentative if the person fills the vacancy for more than 

9 1 year. 

10 ‘‘SECTION 2. No person who has served 2 terms as 

11 a Senator shall be eligible for election or appointment to 

12 the Senate. For purposes of this section, the election or 

13 appointment of a person to fill a vacancy in the Senate 

14 shall be included as 1 term in determining the number 

15 of terms that such person has served as a Senator if the 

16 person fills the vacancy for more than 3 years. 

17 ‘‘SECTION 3. No term beginning before the date of 

18 the ratification of this article shall be taken into account 

19 in determining eligibility for election or appointment under 

20 this article.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
III 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 13 

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 

for a ceremony to present the Congressional Gold Medal to the American 

Fighter Aces. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 20, 2015 

Mr. MANCHIN submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol 

Visitor Center for a ceremony to present the Congressional Gold Medal to the American Fighter Aces. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR CEREMONY 

4 TO PRESENT CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL 

5 TO AMERICAN FIGHTER ACES. 

6 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—Emancipation Hall in the 

7 Capitol Visitor Center is authorized to be used on May 

8 20, 2015, for a ceremony to present the Congressional 

9 Gold Medal to the American Fighter Aces collectively, in 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SCON 13 IS 

1 recognition of their heroic military service and defense of 

2 our country’s freedom throughout the history of aviation 

3 warfare. 

4 (b) PREPARATIONS.—Physical preparations for the 

5 conduct of the ceremony described in subsection (a) shall 

6 be carried out in accordance with such conditions as may 

7 be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
1 The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-3724

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Western District of Missouri. * Jose Estrada, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: October 20, 2009 Filed: December 18, 2009

___________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Jose Estrada challenges the below-Guidelinesrange sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute 5 kilograms or more of a substance containing cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846; posse ssing with the intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of a substance contai ning cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C. § 2; c onspiring to conduct fi nancial transactions affecting interstate or foreign commerce w ith the intent to promote unlawful activity-2- and to disguise the nature, location, source, ownership or control of the proceeds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(1)(A)(i), (a)(1)(B)(i), (a)(1)(B)(ii), 1956(h), and 1957; and aiding and abetting the delivery of the proceeds from the unlawful distribution of cocaine, knowing that the transaction was designed to conceal the course of the proceeds, in violati on of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1956(a)(1)(A)(i), and (a)(1)(B)(i). On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdrawand has filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Estrada’s sentence is unreasonable because he had no criminal history. We review the imposition of sentences under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, first ensuring that the district court committed no significant procedural error, and then considering the substan tive reasonableness of the sentence. SeeUnited States v. Feemster , 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (listi ng factors that constitute abuse of discretion); United States v. Haack , 403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review). We find no abuse of discretion here. After reviewing the record i ndependently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues fo r appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we gr ant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Estrada about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari.

______________________________
# national_M2021_dl

# Field Descriptions

# UpdateTime

# Filler
#### CONSOLIDATED THEATRES, Inc. et al. v. WARNER BROS. CIRCUIT MANAGEMENT CORP. et al. In re GOLD & NICKERSON.

United States District Court, S. D. New York.

Nov. 13, 1953.

Fennelly, Eagan, Nager *&*Lage, New York City, Leo C. Fennelly, New York City, for Gold & Nickerson.

*250Dwight, Royall, Harris, Koegel & Caskey, New York City, for Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.

E. Compton Timberlake, Denver, Colo., for Paramount Pictures, Inc. and Paramount Pictures Corp.

Robert W. Perkins, New York City, for Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.

Adolph Schimel, New York City, for Universal Pictures Co., Inc.

Herbert B. Lazarus, New York City, for Unitex Paramount Theatres, Inc.

Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin & Krim, New York City, for United Artists Corp.

J. Miller Walker, New York City, for RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. and Radio-Keith-Orpheum Corporation.

J. Robert Rubin, New York City, for Loew’s Incorporated.

Schwartz & Frohlich, New York City, for Warner Bros. Circuit Management Corporation, now known as Stanley Warner Management Corp.

GODDARD, District Judge.

This is a motion by respondent to strike certain items from the record on appeal designated by the petitioners, respondent having filed an appeal from a decision on a motion disqualifying him from serving as attorney for the plaintiff in this case.

Rule 75(h) of the Federal Rules, 28 U.S.C.A., provides that if there is any dispute as to whether the record on appeal truly discloses what occurred in the district court, the difference shall be “settled by that court and the record made to conform to the truth. * * * All other questions as to the content and form of the record shall be presented to the co,urt of appeals.”

In Treasure Imports, Inc. v. Henry Amdur & Sons, Inc., 2 Cir., 1942, 127 F.2d 3, 4 at page 4, the court said—

> “F.R.C.P. 75(h) gives the district court power only to correct misstatements or actual omissions.”

Since there is no question that the items sought to be excluded accurately reflect what has occurred in the prior proceedings, this court has no power to intervene. Westmoreland Asbestos Co., Inc., v. Johns-Manville Corp., D.C., 1 F.R.D. 249; In re Sullivan, D.C., 2 F.R.D. 238; Prichard v. Nelson, D.C., 55 F.Supp. 506, at page 517.

Respondent also moved to require defendant-petitioners to designate attorneys to accept service for all, which was consented to.

Motion to strike denied. Motion to designate attorneys granted on consent. Settle order on notice.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. John MCEVER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-10773

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 30, 2008.

J. Michael Worley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Raymond J. Rodgers, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal *664Case, John McEver presents arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by *United States v. Brown,*920 F.2d 1212, 1216-17 (5th Cir.1991), *abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Candia,*454 F.3d 468, 472-73 (5th Cir.2006), which held that a district court may order a term of imprisonment to run consecutively with an unimposed state sentence. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6559

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES CLAUDE BAILEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (2:03-cr-00187-HCM; 2:04-cv-00711-HCM)

Submitted: August 24, 2006 Decided: August 30, 2006

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Claude Bailey, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Westley Haynie,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

James Claude Bailey seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bailey has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
Median usual weekly earnings of full-time wage and 
salary workers, by sex, race, and ethnicity, 2007


				Women	Men

Total				$614 	$766 
White				$626 	$788 
Black or African American	$533 	$600 
Asian				$731 	$936 
Hispanic or Latino		$473 	$520
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Zunicom, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the  period  ending  June 30,  2003 as filed  with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Julie  Sansom-Reese,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350,  as enacted  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.



/s/ Julie Sansom-Reese
----------------------
Julie Sansom-Reese
Chief Financial Officer

August 13, 2003





























                                       24
#### Elena GUZMAN DE CASTANEDA, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Stephen L. FICKETT, District Director, Phoenix Arizona, Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services; Department of Homeland Security; Robert P. Wiemann, Director, Administrative Appeals Office, Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 06-15407.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 3, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 21, 2007.

Marshall G. Whitehead, Esq., Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Cynthia M. Parsons, Office of The U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for DefendantsAppellees.

Before: B. FLETCHER, BERZON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant Elena Guzman de Castaneda (Guzman) appeals the district court’s dismissal of her case as moot. Guzman’s appeal has merit.

Guzman’s contention that 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(A)(ii) did not render her inadmissible and that she therefore should not have been required to file an Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission Into the United States After Deportation or Removal (Form 1-212) prior to applying for adjustment of status constitutes a “present controversy as to which effective relief can be granted.” *Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr. v. Gordon,*849 F.2d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir.1988). The gist of Guzman’s action was consistent: she sought to overturn the denial of her Application for Permission to Reapply, which prevents her from applying for adjustment of status. Whether that is accomplished by a ruling that § 1182(a)(9)(A) does not apply or a reversal on the merits regarding the application of § 1182(a)(9)(A)(ii) to her case, “effective relief could be granted.” *Id.*If the district court was dissatisfied with the state of Guzman’s pleadings, leave to amend should have been allowed under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. *See Lopez v. Smith,*203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc) (noting that this Court has “repeatedly stressed that the court must remain guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate decision on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities”) (citation, alteration and internal quotation marks omitted).

We decline to address the government’s argument regarding sufficiency of service of process and direct the district court to resolve this issue on remand. *See S.J. v. Issaquah School Dist. No. 411,*470 F.3d 1288, 1293 (9th Cir.2006).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Order entered November 23, 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 22
- 00883
- CV DAVID GARVIN, JR. , Appellant

V. AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK , Appellee On Appeal fr om the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 21
- 06754

O RDER
As ordered to do so, appellant has provided written verification that he has returned court reporter Terri Etekochay’s “designation form” and requested

trans cription of the pr oceedings held “on or about” July 5 , 2022 and August 10 , 2022

. Accordingly, we ORDER Ms. Etekochay to file, no later than December 8,
2022 , either the reporter’s record of the proceedings appellant requested or written
verific ation no re cord exists.
We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. Etekochay and the parties.
/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
Exhibit
21  List of Subsidiaries of
INAMED Corp  Biodermis Corporation Bioenterics Corporation Bioenterics Latin America
S.A. de C.V. Bioenterics Ltd. Bioplexus Corporation Chamfield Ltd. Collagen Aesthetics (UK)
Limited Collagen Aesthetics
Australia Pty. Ltd. Collagen Aesthetics Benelux
S.A. Collagen Aesthetics Canada
Ltd. Collagen Aesthetics France
S.A.R.L Collagen Aesthetics GmbH Collagen Aesthetics Iberica
S.A. Collagen Aesthetics
International, Inc. Collagen Aesthetics S.A. Collagen Aesthetics S.R.L Collagen Aesthetics Vertrieb Collagen Aesthetics, Inc. Collagen B.V. Collagen Biomedical Pty Ltd. Collage KK Collagen Luxembourg S.A. Collagen Scandinavia A/S CUI Corporation Flowmatrix Corporation Inamed Brazil Ltda. Inamed Development Company Inamed Medical Products
Corporation Inamed Japan Inamed Medical Group Inamedical B.V. Innermedical Ltd. McGhan Deutschland GmbH McGhan Ltd. McGhan Medical & Co. KG McGhan Medical Benelux B.V. McGhan Medical GmbH McGhan Medical Ltd. McGhan Medical Mexico, S.A.
de C.V. McGhan Medical S.A.R.L. McGhan Medical S.R.L. McGhan Medical S.A. Medisyn Technologies
Corporation Medisyn Technologies Ltd.