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








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





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and in connection with the filing by Intermost
Corporation, a Wyoming Corporation (the “Company”) with the Securities and
Exchange Commission of its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months
ended March 31, 2009 (the “Report”), the undersigned, Rocky Wulianghai,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, that
to the best of his knowledge:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, 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 condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





This certification is being provided
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is not to be deemed a part of this Report, nor is
it to be deemed to be “filed” for any purpose whatsoever.





Date:  May
12, 2009











By:       /s/ Rocky Wulianghai


Rocky
Wulianghai, President and


Chief
Executive 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
                            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 on Form 10K of ATEL Cash  Distribution Fund
VI, LP, (the "Partnership") for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  and
pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.   ss.1350,   as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, I, Dean L. Cash,  Chief  Executive  Officer of ATEL
Financial  Services,  LLC,  general partner of the  Partnership,  hereby certify
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 Partnership.

Date:        3/26/2004



 /s/ Dean Cash
-------------------------
Dean L. Cash
President and Chief Executive
Officer of General Partner
#### Roland ONAWOLA, Dr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY; Johns Hopkins University Board of Trustees; William R. Brody, President; Michael Klagg, Dean; Alfred Somer, Former Dean; Jonathan Samet, Dr.; Kathy Helzlsouer, Dr.; George Comstock, Dr.; Rosa Crum, Dr.; Taha Taha, Dr.; Lisa Jacobson, Dr.; Frances Burman, Dr.; Genevieve Matanoski, Dr.; John Does 1-5, Defendants—Appellees, Defendants.

No. 07-2073.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 28, 2008.

Decided: May 5, 2008.

Roland Onawola, Appellant Pro Se. Philip Shams Roberts, Terri Lynn Turner, John Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

*359Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Roland Onawola appeals the district court’s order dismissing this action on the basis of res judicata. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Onawola v. Johns Hopkins Univ.,*No. 1:07-cv-00870 (D.Md. Sept. 24, 2007). 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.
Exhibit 31.2
**CERTIFICATION**
I, John L. Finlayson, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended June 30, 2004 of Susquehanna Media Co.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 c. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  d. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  e. Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
 6. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
 a. All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: August 13, 2004    /s/ John L. Finlayson  John L. Finlayson Vice President and CFO
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 30, 2014

No. 04-14-00376-CR

IN RE John Newton ALLEN

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On May 27, 2014, relator filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus. The court has 

determined that it lacks jurisdiction to consider relator’s petition. Accordingly, relator’s petition 

is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). The court’s 

opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on May 30th, 2014.

_____________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 30th day of May, 2014.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 9630, styled The State of Texas v. John Newton Allen, pending in the 2nd 

District Court, Cherokee County, Texas, the Honorable Dwight L. Phifer presiding.
Order entered January 10 , 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00921
- CV FLUOR CORPORATION, F LUOR ENTERPRISES, IN C., AND FLUOR DANIEL MEXICO, S.A., Appellant s

V. E.D.G.M., Appellee On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 16
- 15978



### O RDER The clerk’s record in this case is overdue. By order dated October 3, 2019 we granted appellant’s petition for permissive appeal, deemed the notice of appeal filed as of that date, and ordered the clerk’s record to be filed within twenty days of the date of the order. To date, the clerk’s record has not been filed. So that this accelerated appeal may proceed, we ORDER Felic ia Pitre, Dallas County District Clerk, to file the clerk’s record in this appeal within TEN DAYS of the date of this
order.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 5, 2022

No. 04-21-00512-CV

MR. W FIREWORKS, INC.,

Appellant

v.

CONCHO ACQUISITION PARTNERS, LLC,

Appellee

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021-CI-03698

Honorable Tina Torres, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The clerk’s record was originally due December 27, 2021, but was not filed. On 

December 28, 2021, the district clerk filed a notification of late record, stating that the clerk’s 

record was not filed because appellant had failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s 

fee for preparing the record and that appellant was not entitled to appeal without paying the fee. 

 We therefore ORDER that appellant provide written proof to this court that either (1) the 

clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) appellant 

is entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee by January 18, 2022. If appellant fails to 

respond within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 37.3(b).

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 5th day of January, 2022.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
*

 After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 20, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 10-8001

v. (D. of Wyo.)

GILBERTO PINON-AYON,

Defendant-Appellant.

(D.C. No. 09-CR-210-CAB)

ORDER

Before HARTZ, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.*

 

Gilberto Pinon-Ayon was convicted of conspiracy to distribute

methamphetamine and appealed the district court’s decision to enhance his

sentence. The United States of America has filed an unopposed motion to vacate

the defendant’s sentence and remand to the district court for a new sentencing

hearing. 

Having jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we GRANT the motion. 

We agree the district court should review the evidence and make specific and

independent findings to justify an obstruction of justice enhancement pursuant to
-2-

USSG § 3C1.1. See United States v. Mares, 441 F.3d 1152, 1160–61 (10th Cir.

2006); United States v. Markum, 4 F.3d 891, 897 (10th Cir. 1993). We therefore

VACATE Pinon-Ayon’s sentence and REMAND to the district court for a new

sentencing hearing. Because we are vacating Pinon-Ayon’s sentence, we do not

address his arguments regarding whether the district court erred in including

additional methamphetamine in calculating his relevant conduct. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Timothy M. Tymkovich

Circuit Judge
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see

Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please

also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other

deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the

filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

3 Plaintiff-Appellee,

4 v. NO. 31,166

5 TAMARA LOIS MAYFIELD,

6 Defendant-Appellant.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CURRY COUNTY

8 Teddy L. Hartley, District Judge

9 Gary K. King, Attorney General

10 Santa Fe, NM

11 for Appellee

12 Tamara Lois Mayfield

13 Clovis, NM 

14 Pro Se Appellant

15 MEMORANDUM OPINION

16 VANZI, Judge.
2

1 Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of

2 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has

3 been filed and the time for doing so has expired.

4 AFFIRMED.

5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 _______________________________

7 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge

8 WE CONCUR:

9 _________________________________

10 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge

11 _________________________________

12 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge
Exhibit 10.1


 


 





Nuts and Bolts International, Inc.

100 Europa Drive, Suite 455

Chapel Hill, NC 27517


September 10, 2014


 


Memo to File:


 


Re: To memorialize the Mike Hillerbrand verbal employment
agreement with Nuts and Bolts International, Inc.


 


Nuts and Bolts International, Inc. will pay to Mike Hillerbrand,
president of the company, a salary of $1,500 a month to cover expenses associated with his work on behalf of the company. There
will on occasion be other incidental expenses that may be paid as well. This agreement goes into effect on January 31, 2014. This
agreement can be canceled at any time with no notice required on the part of Mr. Hillerbrand or the company.


 


 


/s/ Mike Hillerbrand                          9.10.14


Mike Hillerbrand, President            Date




  


/s/ Elizabeth Floyd                            9.10.14





Elizabeth Floyd, Secretary                Date
(December 29, 1997)

#### John Q. Adams et al., Appellants, v Francis O’Connor et al., Respondents.

[666 NYS2d 497]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for fraud in connection with a contract for the sale of real estate, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), entered December 5, 1996, which, upon an order of the same court dated October 11, 1996, granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs’ contention that the Supreme Court improperly considered evidentiary material on the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) is improperly raised for the first time on appeal. In any event, it is without merit *(see, Rovello v Orofino Realty Co.,*40 NY2d 633, 636). The court did not notify the parties that it was treating the motion as one for summary judgment, nor is there any indication that this occurred, or that the parties deliberately charted a summary judgment course *(see, Williams v New York City Hous. Auth.,*238 AD2d 413; *cf., 51 St. Nicholas Realty Corp. v City of New York,*218 AD2d 343). Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly considered the evidentiary submissions to assess the viability of the complaint, and inasmuch as the defendants’ evidence demonstrated that a material fact alleged by the plaintiffs to be true “[was] not a fact at all” and that “no significant dispute exist [ed] regarding it”, the complaint was properly dismissed *(Guggenheimer v Ginzburg,*43 NY2d 268, 275; *see also, Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., supra).*

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are either improperly raised for the first time on appeal or without merit. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Santucci and Lemer, JJ., concur.
#### Gary SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.P. KANE, Warden; James Davis, Chairman, Board of Parole Hearings, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 08-15587.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 16, 2011.

Gary Smith, Soledad, CA, pro se.

Andrew R. Woodrow, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.

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 Gary Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s judg*764ment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.

Smith contends that the Board of Prison Terms’ 2003 decision to deny him parole for five years was not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights.

After briefing was completed in this case, this court held that a certificate of appealability is required to challenge the denial of parole. *See Hayward v. Marshall,*603 F.3d 546, 554-55 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc). Now the Supreme Court has held that 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, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Because Smith raises no procedural challenges regarding his parole hearing, a certificate of appealability cannot issue. Further, because Smith has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, we decline to certify the remaining claims. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Daniel SIEBERT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Richard F. ALLEN, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 06-11841.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Jan. 7, 2008.

Anne Borelli and Leslie S. Smith (Court-Appointed) Fed. Defenders, La-Juana S. Davis (Court-Appointed), Equal Justice Initiative of AL, Montgomery, AL, for Siebert.

J. Clayton Crenshaw, Montgomery, AL, Kevin Christopher Newsom, Bradley, Ar-ant, Rose & White, LLP, Birmingham, AL, for Allen.

Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER:

Based upon our review of Petitioner-Appellant’s Motion for Clarification filed January 4, 2008, and given that jurisdiction over this case remains with the United States Supreme Court until rehearing is resolved and their final judgment issues, we vacate this Court’s December 21, 2007 opinion on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States.
#### Mineola Automotive, Inc., Appellant, v Millbrook Properties, Ltd., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[986 NYS2d 354]

In an action to recover damages for injury to property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Diamond, J.), dated January 31, 2013, which granted the motion of the defendants Millbrook Properties, Ltd., and LGM Equities, LLC, to disqualify its attorney.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“Whether to disqualify an attorney is a matter which lies within the sound discretion of the court” *(Matter of Madris v Oliviera,*97 AD3d 823, 825 [2012]). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the motion to disqualify the plaintiff’s attorney, “considering the settled principle that doubts as to the existence of a conflict of interest *681must be resolved in favor of disqualification so as to avoid even the appearance of impropriety” *(Seeley v Seeley,*129 AD2d 625, 627 [1987]).

Dillon, J.E, Leventhal, Sgroi and Maltese, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 198 (Monday, October 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 48145]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22322]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 10161]


Notice of Determinations: Culturally Significant Objects Imported 
for Exhibition Determinations: ``Veiled Meanings: Fashioning Jewish 
Dress From the Collection of The Israel Museum, Jerusalem'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition 
``Veiled Meanings: Fashioning Jewish Dress from the Collection of The 
Israel Museum, Jerusalem,'' imported from abroad for temporary 
exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The 
objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign 
owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of 
the exhibit objects at The Jewish Museum, New York, New York, from on 
or about November 3, 2017, until on or about March 18, 2018, at The 
Contemporary Jewish Museum, San Francisco, California, from on or about 
August 30, 2018, until on or about January 6, 2019, and at possible 
additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the 
national interest.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the imported objects, contact Elliot Chiu in the Office of the 
Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; 
email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5e2d3b3d2a3731306c6a6b671e2d2a3f2a3b70393128"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="26554345524f49481412131f66555247524308414950">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. Department 
of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the 
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, 
et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 
of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 
2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 257-1 of 
December 11, 2015). I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
determinations be published in the Federal Register.

Alyson Grunder,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2017-22322 Filed 10-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>