alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Croghan Bancshares, Inc. (the
"Corporation") on Form 10-Q for the three-month period ended March 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Steven C. Futrell, President and CEO of the Corporation, 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:

(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 Corporation.

Date: April 22, 2004                          /s/  Steven C. Futrell
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Steven C. Futrell, President & CEO

* This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a -14(b) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter
63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and shall not be deemed "filed" for
purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability
of that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act,
except as otherwise stated in such filing.
III 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 119 

Amending rule XXVIII of the Standing Rules of the Senate to provide 

for timely establishment of conference committees. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 26, 2015 

Mr. MERKLEY (for himself and Mr. UDALL) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Amending rule XXVIII of the Standing Rules of the Senate 

to provide for timely establishment of conference committees. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. MOTIONS TO GO TO CONFERENCE. 

3 Rule XXVIII of the Standing Rules of the Senate is 

4 amended by striking paragraph 2(b) and inserting the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘(b) Consideration of a motion described in subpara7 graph (a), including consideration of any debatable motion 

8 or appeal in connection therewith, shall be limited to not 

9 more than 2 hours.’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

VMR ASSOCIATES, INC.
, Appellant,

v.

BUILDZ, LLC f/k/a PRECISION CONSTRUCTION, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 1103

[ October 7, 2021 ]

Appeal of a nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Jeffrey R. Levenson , Judge; L.T. Case

No. CACE 18

- 13943

.

Vincent F. Vaccarella and Dylan E. Goldberg of Vincent F. Vaccarella, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appe llant.

Daniel S. Rosenbaum and Dina L. Rosenbaum of Rosenbaum PLLC, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER
, D AMOORGIAN and L EVINE , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leon McANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-2861.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 7, 2007.*

Decided Feb. 5, 2008.

Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc Denied March 17, 2008.

Leon McAnderson, Memphis, TN, pro se.

*722John F. Podliska, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for United States of America.

Before Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge, Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge and Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge.

*

 After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

ORDER

Leon McAnderson, a member of the El Rukn gang, conspired with others to commit terrorist acts in the United States on behalf of the Libyan government. In 1987 a jury returned a guilty verdict against McAnderson on a single count of conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, *see*18 U.S.C. § 371, six counts of traveling in interstate commerce to commit arson, *see id.*§ 1952(a)(3), twenty-five counts of using an interstate telephone facility to further illegal activity, *see id.,*one count of attempting to receive an explosive, *see id.*§ 844(d), and two counts of possessing unregistered firearms, *see*26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). He was sentenced to a total of 51 years’ imprisonment, which included thirty-one consecutive one-year sentences on each of the travel and telephone counts. We affirmed his convictions on appeal. *See United States v. McAnderson,*914 F.2d 934 (7th Cir.1990). Fourteen years later, McAnderson moved to correct his sentence under former Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a), arguing that the thirty-one consecutive one-year sentences are illegal. The district court had jurisdiction to entertain the motion because former Rule 35(a), which applies to offenses committed before November 1, 1987, allows defendants to challenge illegal sentences “at any time.” *See Hill v. United States,*368 U.S. 424, 430, 82 S.Ct. 468, 7 L.Ed.2d 417 (1962); *United States v. Canino,*212 F.3d 383, 384 (7th Cir.2000). The district court denied the motion, and we affirm.

McAnderson argues that it was unlawful to punish him with multiple, consecutive sentences for each act of travel or telephone use because they all furthered the same illegal activity. But, as the district court explained, each act of interstate travel or use of the telephone may be charged as a separate offense under the Travel Act, regardless whether they were part of a common scheme. *See United States v. Briggs,*700 F.2d 408, 417 (7th Cir.1983); *United States v. Villano,*529 F.2d 1046, 1061-62 (10th Cir.1976); *United States v. Polizzi,*500 F.2d 856, 897-99 (9th Cir.1974). Accordingly, the court was empowered to sentence McAnderson up to the statutory maximum of five years for each count, *see*18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3), and could elect that the sentences run consecutively, *see, e.g., United States v. Brocksmith,*991 F.2d 1363, 1368-69 (7th Cir. 1993); *United States v. Graham,*856 F.2d 756, 762 (6th Cir.1988).

AFFIRMED.
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
III 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 141 

Supporting the goals and ideals of Take Our Daughters And Sons To Work 

Day. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 20, 2015 

Mr. BURR (for himself and Ms. HEITKAMP) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and ideals of Take Our Daughters 

And Sons To Work Day. 

Whereas the Take Our Daughters To Work program was created in New York City as a response to research that 

showed that, by the 8th grade, many girls were dropping 

out of school, had low self-esteem, and lacked confidence; 

Whereas in 2003, the name of the program was changed to 

‘‘Take Our Daughters And Sons To Work’’ so that boys 

who face many of the same challenges as girls could also 

be involved in the program; 

Whereas in 2015, the mission of the program, to develop ‘‘innovative strategies that empower girls and boys to overcome societal barriers to reach their full potential’’, fully 

reflects the addition of boys; 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 141 ATS 

Whereas the Take Our Daughters And Sons To Work Foundation, a nonprofit organization, has grown to be one of 

the largest public awareness campaigns, with more than 

39,000,000 participants annually in more than 3,000,000 

organizations and workplaces representing each State; 

Whereas in 2007, the Take Our Daughters To Work program 

transitioned to Elizabeth City, North Carolina, became 

known as the Take Our Daughters And Sons To Work 

Foundation, and received national recognition for its 

dedication to future generations; 

Whereas every year, mayors, governors, and other private and 

public officials sign proclamations and lend support to 

Take Our Daughters And Sons To Work Day; 

Whereas the fame of the Take Our Daughters And Sons To 

Work program has spread overseas, with requests and inquiries being made from around the world on how to operate the program; 

Whereas 2015 marks the 22nd anniversary of the Take Our 

Daughters And Sons To Work program; 

Whereas Take Our Daughters And Sons to Work Day will 

be observed on Thursday, April 23, 2015; and 

Whereas by offering opportunities for children to experience 

activities and events, Take Our Daughters And Sons To 

Work Day is intended to continue helping millions of 

girls and boys on an annual basis to examine their opportunities and strive to reach their fullest potential: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) recognizes the goals of introducing our 

3 daughters and sons to the workplace; and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 141 ATS 

1 (2) commends all participants of Take Our 

2 Daughters And Sons To Work Day for their ongoing 

3 contributions to education, and for the vital role the 

4 participants play in promoting and ensuring a 

5 brighter, stronger future for the United States. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 34.4a



LOGO

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors and shareholders of CoreLogic, Inc.:

We have examined managements assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance, that CoreLogic Tax Services, LLC
(the Company), an indirect subsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc. complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB for all loans for residential and commercial mortgage
loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the residential and commercial tax service provider (the Platform), as of December 31, 2015 and for the year then ended, only including 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(ii),
1122(d)(2)(v), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii) and 1122(d)(4)(xiii), which the Company has determined are applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible
for the Companys compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Companys compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included
testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected servicing
activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances
or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Companys
compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, managements assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned
applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015 for all loans for residential and commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the residential and commercial tax service provider is
fairly stated, in all material respects.

February 4, 2016

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1800, Dallas, Texas 75201

T: (214) 999-1400, F: (214) 754-7991, www.pwc.com/us
Americomm Resources Corporation
                         15 E. 5th Street, Suite 4000
                         Tulsa, Oklahoma  74103-4346

                              PROMISSORY NOTE

Maker:  Americomm Resources Corporation     Date of Note:
        15 E. 5th Street, Suite 4000        March 15, 1999
        Tulsa, Oklahoma  74103-4346
                                            Maturity Date:
                                            September 15, 1999

                                            Amount of Note:
                                            $105,000 + 10% interest at
                                            Maturity Date + additional
                                            amounts of accrued corporate
                                            operating expenses paid by
                                            A. E. Whitehead

     This note, drawn in favor of Albert E. Whitehead Living Trust, Albert
E. Whitehead, Trustee, in the amount of $105,000 plus 10% interest, is due
and payable September 15, 1999.  At his option, A. E. Whitehead may elect to
extend the maturity date or otherwise modify the payment terms.  A. E.
Whitehead further agrees to pay certain corporate operating expenses to be
added to the original amount of this note under the same terms.

     The proceeds of this loan were used by Americomm Resources Corporation
to pay rentals on Federal leases due April 1, 1999, for its Cheyenne River
Prospect in Wyoming and ongoing operating expenses added to the original
amount of the note.

                                     Americomm Resources Corporation




Albert E. Whitehead, Trustee         Thomas R. Bradley, President & CEO
Albert E. Whitehead Living Trust
Exhibit 32.1











CERTIFICATION OF CEO PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K/A of ClubCorp Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended  December 27, 2016 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Eric L. Affeldt, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, 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 at the dates and for the periods presented.








/s/ Eric L. AffeldtEric L. AffeldtChief Executive Officer and Director(principal executive officer)





Date: March 27, 2017





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





This Certification is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the registrant under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1133 CAF 11-00655 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, FAHEY, CARNI, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF JUDY ANDERSON, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YASIN TISDALE, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

MINDY L. MARRANCA, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.
CHARLES J. GREENBERG, AMHERST, FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
MARY ANNE CONNELL, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, BUFFALO, FOR NASIR Y.T. AND NADIA S.-Y.T.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Kevin M. Carter, J.), entered February 7, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order dismissed the petition for modification of custody. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Same Memorandum as in Matter of Tisdale v Anderson (___ AD3d ___ [Nov. 16, 2012]).

Entered: November 16, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited consolidated balance sheet and the consolidated statement of
operations filed as a part of the quarterly report on Form 10Q and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such quarterly report of Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0000887150
<NAME>                          Charles Clayton
<MULTIPLIER>                    1000
<CURRENCY>                      US Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    JUL-03-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                       1
<CASH>                            1,125
<SECURITIES>                        525
<RECEIVABLES>                    19,466
<ALLOWANCES>                     (1,835)
<INVENTORY>                      35,651
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 60,292
<PP&E>                           37,579
<DEPRECIATION>                  (25,340)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   95,603
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            12,501
<BONDS>                          21,349
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                            418
<OTHER-SE>                       59,239
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     95,603
<SALES>                          39,576
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 39,974
<CGS>                            32,271
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    32,271
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  9,684
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  687
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (2,668)
<INCOME-TAX>                       (355)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (2,313)
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                     (2,313)
<EPS-BASIC>                     (0.56)
<EPS-DILUTED>                     (0.56)



</TABLE>
Exhibit 4.1


 


 




	
INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF NEVADA









 




	  		  
	

NUMBER

	

SHARES


	  	  
	  	  
	  	  
	
 

	
 


	  	  
	  	  
	  	  







 


Fully Paid Non Assessable $0.001 Par Value COMMON STOCK


CUSIP NO. 53632A 102


 


THIS CERTIFIES THAT


 


IS THE RECORD HOLDER OF


 



	
Shares of

	
LiqTech International, Inc.

	
Common Stock







transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar.


WITNESS the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signature of its duly authorized officers.


 



	
Dated:

	
COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED


	  	
ACTION STOCK TRANSFER CORP.


	  	
2469 E Ft. Union Blvd., #214, Salt Lake City, UT 84121


	  	  
	  	
By:

	  	  
	  	
TRANSFER AGENT-AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE







 



	  	


	


	


	  
	  	
CEO

	
CFO

	  





 




  





  











  






 


The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations:


 



	
TEN COM  -

	
as tenants in common

	
UNIF GIFT MIN ACT -

	
 .......................Custodian..................


	
TEN ENT   -

	
as tenants by the entireties

	  	
(Cust)

	
(Minor)


	
JT TEN       -

	
as joint tenants with rights of

	  	
under Uniform Gifts to Minors


	  	
survivorship and not as tenants

	  	
Act .....................................................


	  	
in common

	  	
(State)


	  	  	
UNIF TRF MIN ACT -

	
............Custodian (until age.........)


	  	  	  	
  (Cust)


	  	  	  	................ under Uniform Transfers
	  	  	  	
(Minor)


	  	  	  	
to Minors Act

	..................................  
	  	  	  	  	
(State)







 


Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.


 



	
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, 

	  	
  hereby sell, assign and transfer unto













	
PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER

	  
	
IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE 

	  	  	  











	  
	
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE)


	  
	  
	  
	  











	  	
  Shares







of the capital stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint


 



	  	
  Attorney







to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.


 



	
Dated

	  	  











	X	
 

	  
	  	  	  
	
X

	
 

	  
	  	  	  
	
NOTICE:

	  	
THE SIGNATURE(S) TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME(S) AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.