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

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                                  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 R&G Financial Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned 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
undersigned's best knowledge and belief:

         (a) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Dated this 14th day of November, 2003.

                                                     R&G Financial Corporation

                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     ("Company")

                                                     /s/ Victor J. Galan
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Victor J. Galan
                                                     Chief Executive Officer

                                                     /s/ Joseph R. Sandoval
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Joseph R. Sandoval
                                                     Chief Financial Officer

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY AND WILL BE RETAINED BY THE COMPANY AND FURNISHED TO THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
EXHIBIT 32.1



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Innkeepers USA Trust (the Company) for the period ending
December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeffrey H. Fisher, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, :



| | (1) | the report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(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 conditions and results of operation of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: March 9, 2004



/s/ Jeffrey H. FisherChairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED November 18, 2014

v No. 316911 Calhoun Circuit Court HECTOR GEMBE, a/k/a ARTURO MARTINEZ, LC No. 2012-003305-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: M ETER , P.J., and W HITBECK and R IORDAN , JJ.

W HITBECK , J. ( concurring in part and dissenting in part ).

I concur in the majority’s conclusions regarding the testimony of the complainant’s beliefs about murder, the eff ectiveness of Gembe’s counsel, Gembe’s prosecutorial misconduct issues, and the trial court’s asse ssment of 15 points under offense va riable 8. However, I dissent from the majority’s conclusion regarding the trial court’s departure from the sentencing guidelines. I would vacate Gembe’s sentence a nd remand for the trial court to articulate a justification for the proportio nality of its departure.

A trial court’s departure from the senten cing range that the statutory guidelines recommend must be proportionate to the de fendant’s conduct and criminal history. 1 “[T]he statutory guidelines require more th an an articulation of reasons for a departure; they require justification for the particular departure made.” 2 The trial court must justify the particular departure it makes by explaining “why the sent ence imposed is more proportionate than a sentence within the guidelines recommendation would have been.” 3

Here, the trial court found extensive subs tantial and compelling reasons to justify departing from the sentencing guidelines. However, the trial court did not articulate the reason why its departure from the se ntencing guidelines recommendati on by approximately 5 1/2 years

1 People v Smith , 482 Mich 292, 303; 754 NW2d 284 (2008).

2 Id

. 3 Id . at 304.-2- was more proportional to Gembe’s offense than the recommended sentence. The statutory guidelines required the trial court to justify the pr oportionality of its particular departure, but it failed to do so.

Accordingly, I would vacate Gembe’s sentence and remand for resentencing. In all other respects, I concur in the majority’s opinion.

/s/ William C. Whitbeck
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 10, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 46990]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21708]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Notice of Termination, 10403--First State Bank, Cranford, New 
Jersey

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 
10403--First State Bank, Cranford, New Jersey (Receiver) has been 
authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the Receivership 
Estate of First State Bank (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made 
all dividend distributions required by law.
    The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-
Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all 
documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which 
FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but 
not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, 
assignments and deeds.
    Effective October 1, 2017, the Receivership Estate has been 
terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has 
ceased to exist as a legal entity.

    Dated: October 4, 2017.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-21708 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
1.
    
    6543 Luxembourg S.A.(a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mymetics Corporation) is a
joint stock company organized under the laws of Luxembourg and does business
under the name 6543 Luxembourg S.A.2.
    
    Mymetics S.A. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mymetics Corporation)is a company
organized under the laws of Switzerland and did business under the names
Mymetics S.A. and  Mymetics Management Sàrl  during 2010.3.
    
    Bestewil Holding B.V. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mymetics Corporation)
is a company organized under the laws of the Netherlands and did business under
the name  Bestewil Holding B.V.  during 2010.4.
    
    Mymetics B.V. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mymetics Corporation, via Bestewil
Holding B.V.) is a company organized under the laws of the Netherlands and did
business under the names Mymetics B.V. and  Virosome Biologicals B.V. 
during 2010.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1


                     MANAGING GENERAL PARTNER CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Edward B. Lipkin, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of National Property Analysts
Master Limited Partnership;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. [Intentionally omitted];

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: July 22, 2005
      -------------

By:   EBL&S, Inc., its managing general partner
      -----------------------------------------

By:   /s/ Edward B. Lipkin
      --------------------
      Name:  Edward B. Lipkin
      Title: President
<PAGE>

                         COBITZ, VANDENBERG & FENNESSY

                         CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                      9944 SOUTH ROBERTS ROAD - SUITE 202
                         PALOS HILLS, ILLINOIS  60465

                      (708) 430-4106 - Fax (708) 430-4499


 
                                  EXHIBIT 24
                                  ----------

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
                        -------------------------------

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report 
(Form 10-K) of West Town Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated May 8, 1998, included
in the 1998 Annual Report to Stockholders of West Town Bancorp, Inc.

                              /s/ Cobitz, VandenBerg & Fennessy
                              ---------------------------------
                              Cobitz, VandenBerg & Fennessy

June 5, 1998
Palos Hills, Illinois
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 6, 2019

a1203

Order 

Clerk

December 6, 2019

159987(38)

In re H. M. McCLINTON, Minor. SC: 159987

COA: 346848

Oakland CC Family Div: 

2018-865066-NA

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s October 11, 

2019 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G).
**Exhibit32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of SRS Labs, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas C.K. Yuen,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, asadopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best ofmy knowledge:

 

1.                                      The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                      The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  November 12, 2004 |   |                    |
|--------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                     | By:    | /s/ Thomas C.K. Yuen    |
|                     |   | Thomas C.K. Yuen        |
|                     |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kelly L. Smith, Appellant.

[987 NYS2d 282]

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Sara S. Farkas, J.), rendered December 19, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed *{see People v Griffin,*239 AD2d 936 [1997]).

Present — Scudder, EJ., Smith, Carni, Lindley and Whalen, JJ.
<PAGE>
Exhibit 3.1.5

                                                                         A432738
                                                                           FILED
                                                                     MAY 24 1993

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                         OF ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF
                                     VOXEL



      Allan M. Wolfe and Stephen Hart certify that:

      1. They are the President and Secretary of Voxel, a California
corporation.

      2. The first paragraph of Article III of the Articles of Incorporation of
this corporation is amended to read in full as follows:

      "The total authorized capital stock of the corporation consists of
25,000,000 shares, consisting of 15,000,000 shares of common stock ("Common
Stock"), and 10,000,000 shares of preferred Stock. The initial series of
preferred stock shall be designated "Series A Preferred Stock" and "Series B
Preferred Stock." The Series A Preferred Stock shall consist of 492,904 shares
and the Series B Preferred Stock shall consist of 6,407,291 shares."

      3. The foregoing amendment of Articles of Incorporation has been duly
approved by the Board of Directors.

      4. The foregoing amendment of Articles of Incorporation has been duly
approved by the required vote of shareholders in accordance with Sections 905
and 903 of the Corporations Code. The total numer of outstanding shares of
Common Stock of the corporation is 1,475,000. The total number of outstanding
shares of Series A Preferred Stock of the corporation is 492,904. The total
number of outstanding shares of Series B Preferred Stock of the corporation is
6,322,291. The number of shares of Common Stock, Series A Preferred Stock and
Series B Preferred Stock voting in favor of the amendment equaled or exceeded
the vote required. The percentage vote required was more than 50% of (i) the
outstanding shares of Common Stock and (ii) the outstanding shares of Series A
Preferred Stock and Series B Preferred Stock voting together as a single class.

<PAGE>


      We further declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California that the matters set forth in the foregoing Certificate are true and
correct of our own knowledge.

      Executed at Laguna Hills, California, this 14th day of May, 1993.


                                             /s/ Allan M. Wolfe
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Allan M. Wolfe, President


                                             /s/ Stephen Hart
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Stephen Hart, Secretary



                                      -2-
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of SRS Labs, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q/A for the quarter ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas C.K. Yuen,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, asadopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best ofmy knowledge:

 

1.                                      The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                      The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  May 17, 2005 |   |                    |
|--------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                     | By:    | /s/ Thomas C.K. Yuen    |
|                     |   | Thomas C.K. Yuen        |
|                     |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### McAlister *vs.*The State *of*Georgia.

1. Where a ground of a motion for new trial, based on the admission of evidence, was not verified, and the record does not show that the evidence was objected to, the ruling thereon cannot be considered by this court.

2. There was sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict, and the presiding judge being satisfied, this court will not interfere.

3. Where it was in issue whether the defendant discharged a gun at another with the intent to kill, or whether the gun was discharged accidentally, and the court in his charge instructed the jury several times that, in order to convict the accused, they must be satisfied that he shot at the prosecutor with intent to kill and murder him, and also that, to convict, if the killing had taken place, it must have been murder, and gave fully in charge the law of mur*395der, malice, reasonable doubts, etc., if the charge was not as full as the accused thought it ought to have been, he should have requested a further charge; especially as the jury might have acquitted him under the charge given on his own theory of the defence.

Judgment affirmed.

January 21, 1885.

Blandford, Justice.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 January 5, 2017

s1212

Order 

Clerk

January 5, 2017

154080

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 154080

COA: 324787

Chippewa CC: 13-001286-FH

DALE ALLEN BETLEM,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 17, 2016 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Dexterity Surgical, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
A. Woodfield, 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 results of operations of the
Company.

                                   By:    /s/ Richard A. Woodfield
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                   Name:  Richard A. Woodfield
                                   Title: President, Chief Executive Officer and
                                          Director
                                   Date:  March 28, 2003


         This certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.
#### Chris SALGADO, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Anthony P. KANE, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 08-16491.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 10, 2011.

Chris Salgado, Soledad, CA, pro se.

Patricia Webber Heim, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney *745General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent Appellee.

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Chris Salgado appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Salgado contends that the Board’s 2003 decision to deny him parole was not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights. The only federal right at issue in the parole context is procedural, and the only proper inquiry is what process the inmate received, not whether the state court decided the case correctly. *See Swarthout v. Cooke,*— U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 862-63, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011). Because Salgado raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.

Further, because Salgado has not has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, we decline to certify his remaining claims. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.