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



Statement furnished pursuant to Section 906 of the 
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned, Charles M. Sprock, is the Chief Executive Officer of Rome Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company").

This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the "Report").

By execution of this statement, I certify that:

1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.

This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



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.





May 5, 2005							/s/Charles M. Sprock

D







Statement furnished pursuant to Section 906 of the 
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned, David C. Nolan, is the Chief Financial Officer of Rome Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company").

This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the "Report").

By execution of this statement, I certify that:

1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or                    15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.

This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



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.





May 5, 2005						/s/David C. Nolan 
Dated							David C. Nolan
#### Burke *vs.*The State of Georgia.

Where, before the felonious taking of money by one person from another, the latter make's resistance, and the taking is not only without his consent, but against it, the crime is robbery, not larceny from the person. Code, §§4389, 4410, 4412; 12 *Ga.,*294; 66 *2d.,*167.

Judgment affirmed.

January 21, 1885.

Hall, Justice.

[Burke was indicted and convicted of robbery. The evidence for the state showed that one C. B. Roberts was *373drinking and under the influence of liquor; that defendant went up to him and “ kept fooling around ” his overcoat; that he told defendant that he had nothing that belonged to him; that he had' seven dollars which he took out of his pocket and started to put in his purse; that defendant grabbed four dollars and ran; that Roberts called after him, and he was pursued and arrested by the police, who found $4.00 on his person.

Th'e evidence for the defendant was to the effect that he had a five dollar bill changed shortly before he was - arrested. The jury found him guilty ; he moved for a flew trial, which was refused, and he excepted.] .
**EXHIBIT 99.1**
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**
     In connection with the Annual Report ofConsolidated Water Co. Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Jeffrey M. Parker, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
     (1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and
     (2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and result of operations of the Company.
Date: June 27, 2003 By: /s/ Jeffrey M. Parker      Name: Jeffrey M. Parker     Title: Chief Executive Officer
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 60755 Summary Calendar

ELEAZAR WALBERTO LOPEZ ALVARENGA , Petitioner

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL , Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A208 681 667

Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
Eleazar Walberto Lopez Alvarenga, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from an order of removal. Relying primarily on Pereira v. Sessions , 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018) , Lopez A lvarenga argues that his Notice to Appear (NTA) was not a valid charging document because it failed to state the time and date for his removal proceedings

. Lopez Alvarenga contends that the

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

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

### FILED November 15, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-60755 Document: 00515200783 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/15/2019N o. 18

- 60755

2 immigration court lacked subject matter and personal jurisdiction in the absence of a valid NTA

. We recently rejected these same arguments i n Pierre

- Paul v. Barr , 930 F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 2019 ) . Where, as here, t he NTA specifies the nature of the proceedings, the legal authority for the proceedings, and a warning regardi ng in absentia removal , it is not defective. See Pierre

- Paul , 930 F.3d at 689

- 90. Moreover, even if an NTA lacking a time and date for the removal hearing was defective under Pereira , the defect is cured by a subsequent notice that include s the time and date of the hearing , such as Lopez Alvarenga received in the
instant matter

. See i d. at 690

- 91 . The BIA did not err in dismissing Lopez Alvarenga’s appeal

. Pierre

- Paul , 930 F.3d at 689 ; see Yang v. Holder , 664 F.3d 580, 584 (5th Cir. 2011)

. The petition for review is DENIED. Case: 18-60755 Document: 00515200783 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/15/2019
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.23


January 19, 2002

VIA FAX: 1 210 224 6491

J. Bruce Bugg Jr.,
Vice Chairman,
Consolidated Water Co. Ltd.


Dear Bruce,

Thank you for your fax of January 18, 2002.

I am pleased to confirm that, in accordance with the resolution of the Board on
May 22, 2001, on December 10, 2001, you were granted an option to purchase
30,000 Ordinary Shares of the Company at US$ 11.17 per share. The option may be
exercised by you at any time up to 4:30 p.m. Cayman time on December 10, 2004.

I would add that I have placed an item on the Agenda of the February 1, 2002
Board Meeting in order that these terms may be noted in the Minutes thereof.

We appreciate your continuing efforts on behalf of the Company.

Yours sincerely,
CONSOLIDATED WATER CO. LTD.


/s/ Jeffrey M. Parker

Jeffrey M. Parker
Chairman & C.E.O.
Exhibit 32
CERTIFICATIONS
In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of First SunAmerica Life Insurance Company forthe year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), each of, Jay S. Wintrob, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and N.Scott Gillis, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:
 (1)  The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                /s/  JAY S. WINTROB   Jay S. Wintrob   Chief Executive Officer                                                              /s/  N. SCOTT GILLIS   N. Scott Gillis   Senior Vice President andChief Financial Officer   
Date: April 15, 2005
Exhibit 99.2 - Annual Report of Accountant Relative to Servicing.



                         Independent Accountants' Report


The Board of Directors
First North American National Bank

We have examined  management's  assertion  about First North  American  National
Bank's (FNANB) compliance,  as Servicer, with Article III, subsection 3.4(c) and
sections  3.2,  4.1 and 8.8 of the  Amended  and  Restated  Master  Pooling  and
Servicing Agreement, dated December 31, 2001 (the Agreement),  between FNANB, as
Servicer,  Tyler International Funding,  Inc., as Transferor,  and Deutsche Bank
Trust Company  Americas  (formerly known as Bankers Trust Company),  as Trustee,
for the year ended February 28, 2003,  included in the  accompanying  Management
Report.   Management  is   responsible   for  FNANB's   compliance   with  those
requirements.  Our  responsibility  is to express  an  opinion  on  management's
assertion about FNANB's compliance based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  conducted  in  accordance  with   attestation   standards
established  by the  American  Institute of Certified  Public  Accountants  and,
accordingly,  included  examining,  on a  test  basis,  evidence  about  FNANB's
compliance with those  requirements  and performing such other  procedures as we
considered  necessary  in the  circumstances.  We believe  that our  examination
provides a  reasonable  basis for our  opinion.  Our opinion  does not provide a
legal determination on FNANB's compliance with specified requirements.

In our opinion,  management's  assertion that First North American National Bank
complied with the requirements of the aforementioned  subsection and sections of
the  Agreement  for the year ended  February 28, 2003 is fairly  stated,  in all
material respects.

                                              /s/ KPMG LLP


Richmond, Virginia
May 16, 2003





                                Management Report

Management  of First North  American  National  Bank  (FNANB),  as Servicer,  is
responsible  for  compliance  with the  servicing  requirements  in Article III,
subsection  3.4(c) and  sections  3.2,  4.1 and 8.8 of the Amended and  Restated
Master  Pooling  and  Servicing   Agreement   dated  December  31,  2001,   (the
"Agreement") between FNANB, as Servicer,  Tyler International  Funding, Inc., as
Transferor,  and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (formerly known as Bankers
Trust Company), as Trustee.

Management  has  performed  an  evaluation  of  FNANB's   compliance   with  the
aforementioned  subsection  and  sections  of the  Agreement  for the year ended
February 28, 2003. Based upon this evaluation,  management believes that, during
the year ended February 28, 2003, FNANB, as Servicer, was in compliance with the
aforementioned subsection and sections of the Agreement.



/s/ Philip J. Dunn
Philip J. Dunn
Vice President

May 16, 2003
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Goutam Persaud, Appellant.

[987 NYS2d 221]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Donnino, J.), rendered May 10, 2012, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree, burglary in the first degree (two counts), and conspiracy in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal was valid. At the plea allocution, the Supreme Court sufficiently advised the defendant of the nature of the right to appeal, and the record establishes that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived that right *(see People v Ramos,*7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; *cf. People v Bradshaw,*18 NY3d 257, 259-260 [2011]).

The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his challenges, in effect, to the hearing court’s suppression determination *(see People v Kemp,*94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]; *People v Oseni,*107 AD3d 829, 829 [2013]; *People v Hackett,*93 AD3d 807, 807 [2012]), and his claim that the sentence imposed was excessive *(see People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 258 [2006]; *People v Rivera, 97*AD3d 704, 704 [2012]).

Although a claim that a plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent survives a valid waiver of the right to appeal *(see People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1 [1989]; *People v Santiago,*71 AD3d 703, 704 [2010]), the defendant’s contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 220.60 [3]; 470.05 [2]; *People v Toxey,*86 NY2d 725, 726 [1995]; *People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; *People v Oseni,*107 AD3d at *821829; *People v McKenzie,*98 AD3d 749, 750 [2012]). In any event, the contention is without merit.

Balkin, J.E, Chambers, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.
Exhibit  13.1




Certification Pursuant To
 18 US 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 Tower Semiconductor Ltd. (the “Registrant”) on Form 20-F/A for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Russell C.  Ellwanger, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and section 13 (a).
  2.
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
 
 /s/ Russell C.  EllwangerRussell C.  EllwangerChief Executive Officer
 
 December 29, 2010
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Order entered March 29, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00224-CR

JORGE SUAREZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 11

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. MA10-72305-N

ORDER

On January 14, 2013, this Court ordered the court reporter to file the reporter’s record 

within thirty days. When we did not receive the record by February 22, 2013, we ordered court 

reporter Vearneas Faggett to file the reporter’s record within fifteen days. On March 14, 2013, 

Ms. Faggett was ordered to file the reporter’s record within ten days. In the March 14, 2013 

order, we warned Ms. Faggett that if she did not file the record within the time specified, we 

would order that she not sit until she filed the record in this case. Ms. Faggett has not filed the 

reporter’s record as ordered. Instead, she has filed a request for a thirty-day extension. 

We DENY Vearneas Faggett’s March 22, 2013 request for an extension of time to file 

the reporter’s record.
We ORDER court reporter Vearneas Faggett to file, within THIRTY DAYS of the date 

of this order, the reporter’s record, including all exhibits, in the above-styled case. 

We further ORDER that Vearneas Faggett not sit as a court reporter until she has 

complied with this order. 

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Honorable Elizabeth Frizzell, Presiding Judge of County Criminal Court No. 11; court reporter 

Vearneas Faggett; counsel for the parties; and the Dallas County Auditor’s Office.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 31.1




CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


REQUIRED BY RULE 13A - 14(A) OR RULE 15D - 14(A)




I, Adam Radly, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:




1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Inova Technology Inc.




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. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;




4. The small business issuer'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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and




5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.




Date: September 17, 2012
/s/ Adam RadlyChief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of New York County Asbestos Litigation. Robert F. Perdicaro et al., Respondents, v A.O. Smith *301Water Products et al., Defendants, and Treadwell Corporation, Appellant.

[860 NYS2d 506]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered February 25, 2008, which denied defendant Treadwell’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against Treadwell.

In opposition to Treadwell’s prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, plaintiffs’ evidence failed to raise a factual issue whether plaintiff worker (a Con Edison employee) was present at various Con Edison powerhouses at the same time Treadwell workers or its subcontractors were installing alleged asbestos-based insulation on new equipment. Plaintiff worker’s evidence was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact whether he was exposed to asbestos-based insulation at any given time at the powerhouses. He admittedly lacked training in insulating work, and offered no factual support that would reasonably suggest that the insulation he saw in use at the time he was purportedly present at the Con Ed powerhouses was asbestos-based; the evidence indicated that insulation utilized at these powerhouses often contained fire/heat-resistant components other than asbestos. Although the record indicated Treadwell had ordered asbestos-content paper, glass-cloth and millboard in connection with Con Edison’s Arthur Kill contract, there was no testimony from plaintiff worker that he ever observed the use of such materials at the Arthur Kill construction site. It would be purely speculation to assume that such insulating materials were used during his sporadic and limited presence at the Arthur Kill powerhouse. We find, as matter of law, that plaintiffs’ evidence in opposition to the motion was insufficient to raise a factual issue whether Treadwell’s acts constituted a substantial factor in causing plaintiff worker’s alleged lung disease *(see Diel v Flintkote Co.,*204 AD2d 53 [1994]). Concur—Tom, J.P, Mazzarelli, Gonzalez, Sweeny and DeGrasse, JJ.