alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**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 PLM Equipment Growth Fund V (the
“Partnership”), on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
the undersigned, the President of the General Partner and of the Partnership,
hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:
 
 (1)  the
Report of the Partnership filed today 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.
 
 
 
 
 /s/
James A. Coyne
 James A.
Coyne
 President
of PLM Financial Services, Inc.
 March
29,2005
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8 File Nos. 33-76100, 33-92844, 333-14317, and 333-32689) pertaining to
Penederm Incorporated's Employee Stock Option Plan, Consultant Stock Option
Plan, Equity Incentive Plan, 1994 Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan, and
Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 File
No. 333-22991) of Penederm Incorporated for the registration of 752,000 shares
of its common stock of our report dated January 27, 1998, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Penederm Incorporated included in the
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1997.


                              /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Palo Alto, California
February 26, 1998
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeremy Eugene STAFFELDT; Orlando Leon Pastrano; Lincoln Clarence Metzgar; John Anthony Gonzales, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-10243.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

April 22, 2008.

John Joseph Tuchi, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Cameron Morgan, Attorney at Law, Scottsdale, AZ, Antonio Z. Bustamante, Esq., Law Offices of Antonio D. Busta-mante, Florence *&*Bell Ltd., Candace Hewitt Kent, Esq., Kent *&*Ryan PLC, Antonio R. Zuniga, Esq., Phoenix, AZ, Marc J. Victor, Esq., Victor & Hall, PLC, Mesa, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: STEPHEN REINHARDT, JOHN T. NOONAN, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The Government’s unopposed motion to amend the opinion is GRANTED. The opinion published at 451 F.3d *578*(9th Cir.2006) is amended to delete all mentions of the name “Keith Vercauteren.” Accordingly, the phrase “In September 2003, Assistant United States Attorney Keith Ver-cauteren (‘AUSA Vercauteren’) ...” shall be amended to read, “In September 2003, an Assistant United States Attorney (‘the AUSA’) ...” All subsequent references to *984“AUSA Vereauteren” shall be amended to read, “the AUSA.”
I 

★

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 273 

To amend section 520 of the Housing Act of 1949 to revise the requirements 

for areas to be considered as rural areas for purposes of such Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 12, 2011 

Mr. FORTENBERRY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend section 520 of the Housing Act of 1949 to revise 

the requirements for areas to be considered as rural 

areas for purposes of such Act. 

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 ‘‘Rural Housing Preser5 vation Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF RURAL AREA. 

7 The second sentence of section 520 of the Housing 

8 Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1490) is amended by striking: 

9 ‘‘1990 or 2000 decennial census shall continue to be so 

10 classified until the receipt of data from the decennial cenVerDate Mar 15 2010 20:57 Jan 21, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H273.IH H273

jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 273 IH1S 

1 sus in the year 2010’’ and inserting ‘‘1990, 2000, or 2010 

2 decennial census shall continue to be so classified until the 

3 receipt of data from the decennial census in the year 

4 2020’’. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### Alexander M. TCHEREVIK, as Court Appointed Receiver in Bankruptcy for JSC Holding Company Dalmoreproduct “DMP” a Russian Company, pursuant to the Laws of the Russion Federation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RYBCOMFLOT, a Russian Company; Bergen Industries and Fishing Company, a Liberian Company, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-35968.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 13, 2006.*

Filed Sept. 28, 2006.

Dennis Michael Moran, Esq., William A. Keller, Legros, Buchanan & Paul, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Robert J. Bocko, Esq., Catharine M. Morisset, Esq., Keesal, Young *&*Logan, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, KLEINFELD and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Alexander M. Tcherevik is the court-appointed bankruptcy receiver of Dalmoreproduct, a Russian Corporation. He appeals the District Court decision affirming the Bankruptcy Court ruling. The Bankruptcy Court, after a state court jury trial and jury verdict, allowed another Russian *288corporation, Rybcomflot, to collect Dalmoreproduet’s debt from court-deposited funds. The record reflects, therefore, that Rybcomflot had an interest in assets located in the Western District of Washington.

We review the district court de novo,1 reexamining for abuse of discretion bankruptcy court decisions concerning cases ancillary to a foreign bankruptcy proceeding.2

The legal standard governing this case is former 11 U.S.C. § 304(c), a six factor discretionary test.3 Review of the record does not support a claim that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in ruling against Appellant.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. *See, e.g., In Re Bunyan,*354 F.3d 1149, 1150 (9th Cir.2004).

2

. *See In re Manning,*236 B.R. 14, 19 (9th Cir.BAP 1999) (applying abuse of discretion review to 11 U.S.C. § 304).

3

. § 304 was repealed by Act April 20, 2005 P.L. 109-8, Title VIII, § 802(d)(3), effective 180 days after enactment. However, the new statute is inapplicable to cases commenced under Title 11 before the effective date, as provided by § 1501 of the Act, which appears as 11 USCS § 101 note. Tcherevik’s initial petition was filed in October of 2003, thus this appeal is still governed by § 304.
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 this
Report of AVAX Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard P. Rainey, President (as such, the
principal executive officer and principal 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:

| | (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/   Richard P. Rainey

---

---
Supreme Court of Florida

____________

No. SC17-809

____________

WILLIAM GREGORY THOMAS, 

Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee.

[January 24, 2018]

PER CURIAM.

We have for review William Gregory Thomas’s appeal of the circuit court’s 

order denying Thomas’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. 

Thomas’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme 

Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and our decision on 

remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 

2161 (2017). This Court stayed Thomas’s appeal pending the disposition of 

Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017). 
- 2 -

After this Court decided Hitchcock, Thomas responded to this Court’s order to 

show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.

After reviewing Thomas’s response to the order to show cause, as well as 

the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Thomas is not entitled to relief. 

Thomas was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a 

vote of eleven to one. Thomas v. State, 693 So. 2d 951, 951 (Fla. 1997). 

Thomas’s sentence of death became final in 1997. Thomas v. Florida, 522 U.S. 

985 (1997). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Thomas’s sentence of 

death. See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of 

Thomas’s motion.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Thomas, we 

caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so 

ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion.

LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result.

PARIENTE, J., concurring in result.

I concur in result because I recognize that this Court’s opinion in Hitchcock 

v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 2017 WL 4355572 (U.S. Dec. 4, 

2017), is now final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my 

dissenting opinion in Hitchcock.
- 3 -

An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Duval County, 

Russell L. Healey, Judge - Case No. 161993CF005394AXXXMA

Bjorn Brunvand and J. Jervis Wise, Brunvand Wise, P.A., Clearwater, Florida, 

for Appellant

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer Ann Donahue, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida,

for Appellee
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7264

PAUL W. FERRELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM C. DUNCIL,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior

District Judge. (CA-97-79-2)

Submitted: March 20, 2000 Decided: September 12, 2000

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lonnie C. Simmons, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.

Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General, Barbara H. Allen, Managing Deputy Attorney General, Allen H. Loughry II, Assistant

Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Paul W. Ferrell appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. See Ferrell v. Duncil, No.

CA-97-79-2 (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 16, 1999). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
          The accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements are an
          integral part of these statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                           1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLAR

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<CASH>                                             878,090
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,901,947
<ALLOWANCES>                                         5,790
<INVENTORY>                                      5,565,210
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,379,537
<PP&E>                                           2,062,842
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,358,081
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,802,160
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,510,398
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            27,320
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,802,160
<SALES>                                          8,178,576
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,178,576
<CGS>                                            5,796,534
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,586,350
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 197,566
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    463,481
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                463,481
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       463,481
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         .169
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .147



</TABLE>
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 00-4152



# 
B RIAN L EE W ILLIAMS ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.

(CR-99-609) Submitted: July 20, 2000 Decided: January 29, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. E. Jean Howard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION
PER CURIAM: Brian Lee Williams appeals his conviction pursuant to guilty plea of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(g)(1) (West 2000) and his resulting thirty-month sentence. His attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1968), raising three issues but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Williams was informed of hisright to file a pro se supplemental brief but has failed to do so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. We find no error in Williams’ Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing. We also conclude that we lack authority to review Williams’ sentence, which was at the low end of the properly calculated guidelines range and far below the statutory maximum. See United States v. Porter , 909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th Cir. 1990). Finally, we are also without authority toreview the sentencing court’s denial of Williams’ request for a downward departure based upon family ties and responsibilities because the sentencing court was aware of its authority to depart and simply declined to do so. See United States v. Bayerle , 898 F.2d 28, 31 (4th Cir. 1990).
In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the entire record inthis case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Williams’ conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the clientrequests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that acopy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presentedin the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED 2 U NITED S TATES v. W ILLIAMS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-1582

GEROD STUKES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CLAUDE STAFFORD, individually,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

JOHN NEWHART, individually,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge.

(CA-99-1105-2)

Submitted: February 28, 2001 Decided: April 24, 2001

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Beverly D. Crawford, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Jeff W.

Rosen, Lisa Ehrich, PENDER & COWARD, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

At the close of Gerod Stukes’ presentation of evidence in his

trial alleging employment discrimination, the district court

granted Claude Stafford’s motion for judgment as a matter of law

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a). Stukes appeals from that final order

and also alleges that the district court erred by refusing to admit

certain exhibits into evidence. For the reasons that follow, we

affirm.

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, we do not

find that the district court abused its discretion in its challenged evidentiary ruling. United States v. Fernandez, 913 F.2d

148, 152-53 (4th Cir. 1990). Regarding the district court’s order

granting Stafford’s Rule 50(a) motion, we have reviewed the record

and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Stukes v. Stafford, No. CA-99-1105-2 (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 5, 2000;

entered Apr. 6, 2000). 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
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 The Houston Exploration Company
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
William G. Hargett, Chief Executive 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:

      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 result of operations
            of the Company.

By:    /s/  William G. Hargett
       ---------------------------------------
Name:  William G. Hargett
Title: Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
       The Houston Exploration Company

August 6, 2004
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 Braintech, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the nine month period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Frederick Weidinger the Principal Executive 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 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 result of operations of the Company.




/s/  Frederick
Weidinger




Frederick
Weidinger




Principal
Executive Officer




Dated:
November 12, 2009
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.2



                           GTECH HOLDINGS CORPORATION

                           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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of GTECH Holdings
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending February 22, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I.W. Bruce Turner, President and Chief Executive 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:

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
    respect, the financial condition and result of operation of the Company.



                                      GTECH HOLDINGS CORPORATION



Date: June 25, 2003                  By /s/ Jaymin B. Patel
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                      Jaymin B. Patel, Senior Vice President and
                                      Chief Financial Officer





                                     -135-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DOMINIC JAQUARIUSPA RAY,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 427 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4th day of December, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
** **

**Exhibit 23.1**

** **

** **

**INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S CONSENT**

 

 

 

We consent to the incorporation of our report dated August 30, 2002,for the years ended June 30, 2002 and 2001, included in this Form 10-KSB, andinto VirtualFund.com, Inc.’s previously filed Registration Statement Nos.33-52916 and 333-11157.

 

 

 

/s/ Lurie Besikof Lapidus& Company, LLP

 

Minneapolis, Minnesota

December 19, 2002

 

 

----