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 Quarterly Report of LaBranche & Co Inc. (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, George M.L. LaBranche, IV, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and to the best of my knowledge, that:

1.     the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.     the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the end of, and
for, the period covered by the Report.

|                     |  |                               |  |                                                
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|Date: August 9, 2004 |  | /s/GEORGE M. L. LABRANCHE, IV
|                     |  | Name:                         |  | George M.L. LaBranche, IV                      
|                     |  | Title:                        |  | Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President

The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely 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.A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to LaBranche & Co Inc. and will be retained by
LaBranche & Co Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
                          PREMIER AUTO TRUST 1999-3
        FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 1, 1999 (INCEPTION) THROUGH JUNE 30, 1999
                           FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
                   PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION S-X
                                  $ Millions
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JUN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                          $         4
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                         1,525
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          0
<PP&E>                                    0
<DEPRECIATION>                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        1,529
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    22
<BONDS>                               1,507
<COMMON>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          1,529
<SALES>                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          0
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           0
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                              0
<EPS-BASIC>                          0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.00


</TABLE>
---

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

I, Patrick Laferriere, hereby 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Intervia Inc. for the
      year ended January 31, 2010 (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 Intervia Inc.                                                              

Dated: December 15, 2010

| | /s/ Patrick Laferriere                                 
| | -------------------------------------------------------
| | Patrick Laferriere                                     
| | President, Secretary, Treasurer, Chief
      Financial 
| | Officer and Director                                   
| | (Principal Executive Officer, Principal
      Financial
| | Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)              
| | Intervia Inc.                                          



A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Intervia Inc.
and will be retained by Intervia Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"February 2022 Activity Report","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"ezdVEdwFen\"><a href=\"\/february-2022-activity-report\/\">February 2022 Activity Report<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/february-2022-activity-report\/embed\/#?secret=ezdVEdwFen\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“February 2022 Activity Report” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"ezdVEdwFen\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
<PAGE>


Exhibit 99.2

                            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 Ventiv Health, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John R. Emery,
Chief 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 and
to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a)
or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 78m 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.

/s/ John R. Emery

John R. Emery
Chief Financial Officer
September 5, 2002
#### Hendry Sidharta WIBISONO, Citra Darmawati, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-72781.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 17, 2008.*

Filed May 6, 2008.

Robert G. Ryan, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Holly M. Smith, Linda S. Wendtland, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, BROWNING and SKOPIL, Circuit Judges.

*

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

*708MEMORANDUM **

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of asylum. Because Wibisono’s experiences in Indonesia do not rise to the extreme level of persecution, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that he did not suffer past persecution. *See Fisher v. I.N.S.,*79 F.3d 955, 962 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc) (“[Persecution] does not include mere discrimination, as offensive as it may be.”); *see also Gormley v. Ashcroft,*364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2004). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Wibisono did not have a well-founded fear of future persecution. *See Lolong v. Gonzales,*484 F.3d 1173, 1181 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc). Unlike the petitioner in *Suel v. Ashcroft,*386 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir.2004), Wibisono failed to establish an individualized risk of persecution. Wibisono also failed to establish a pattern or practice of discrimination. The State’s Department’s 2004 report on country conditions for Indonesia states that the government “officially promotes racial and ethnic tolerance” and “instances of discrimination and harassment of ethnic Chinese Indonesians declined compared to previous years.” As the BIA recognized, the country report also indicates that Buddhism is one of the five religions recognized by the government, and that most of the population enjoys a high degree of religious freedom.

Because Wibisono cannot establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily fails to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Finally, Wibisono presented no evidence that he was tortured. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a). Substantial evidence thus supports the BIA’s conclusion that Wibiso-no failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if he returned to Indonesia.

The petition is therefore DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF QUARTERLY REPORT

I, Joseph Wallen, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Quest Oil Corp.;

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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

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.

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.



|By:   | /S/
Joseph Wallen
Joseph Wallen

Chief Financial Officer
|----- | --------------------------------------------------------
|Date: | August 19, 2005
#### William D. WEBSTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stacy BRONSON, in her professional capacity and Kitsap County Juvenile Services, a municipality doing business as Kitsap County, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-35926.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 2, 2010.

*281William D. Webster, Puyallup, WA, pro se.

Philip A. Bacus, Esquire, lone George, Office of the Prosecuting Attorney, Port Orchard, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *281*See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

William D. Webster appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 action claiming that family court investigator Stacy Bronson and the Kitsap County Juvenile Services department violated his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s order granting a motion to dismiss. *Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc.,*143 F.3d 1293, 1295 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm.

*282To the extent Bronson performed in a quasi-judicial or quasi-prosecutorial function, she had absolute immunity. *See Miller v. Gammie,*335 F.3d 889, 898 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc). To the extent Bronson’s conduct fell beyond the parameters of absolute immunity, Webster failed to state a cognizable equal protection claim. *See Monteiro v. Tempe Union High Sch. Dist.,*158 F.3d 1022, 1026 (9th Cir.1998) (equal protection violations “must plead intentional unlawful discrimination or allege facts that are at least susceptible of an inference of discriminatory intent”); *see also Kirtley v. Rainey,*326 F.3d 1088, 1096 (9th Cir.2003) (a guardian ad litem’s role does not constitute state action).

Webster also failed to state a *Monell*claim because he alleged no facts suggesting that his constitutional rights were violated pursuant to a policy, practice, or custom of the County. *See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs.,*436 U.S. 658, 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978).

Webster’s conspiracy claim was also properly dismissed because conclusory allegations are insufficient to support such a claim. See *Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Medicine,*363 F.3d 916, 929 (9th Cir.2004) (dismissal of section 1985 conspiracy claim proper where the plaintiff “failed to allege sufficiently that the appellees conspired to violate her civil rights”); *Woodrum v. Woodward County,*866 F.2d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir.1989) (conclusory allegations of a conspiracy do not support a claim under section 1983).

Contrary to Webster’s contention, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion seeking recusal. *See Taylor v. Regents of Univ. of Cal.,*993 F.2d 710, 712 (9th Cir.1993) (adverse rulings alone are insufficient to demonstrate judicial bias).

Webster’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 15.1
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form F-3 of TAM S.A. (File No. 333-147020), TAM Linhas Aéreas S.A. (File No. 333-147020-01) and TAM Capital Inc. (File No. 333-147020-02), of our report dated March 8, 2012 relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 20-F of TAM S.A., TAM Linhas Aéreas S.A. and TAM Capital Inc. (together, “TAM”) for the year ended December 31, 2011.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers Auditores Independentes

PricewaterhouseCoopers Auditores Independentes

São Paulo, Brazil

March 22, 2012


---
The HONORABLE H. FRANKLIN WATERS, United States District Judge for 1

the Western District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-3356

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Arkansas.

Benjamin F. Shipley, Jr., *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: January 7, 1998

 Filed: January 12, 1998

___________

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After Benjamin Shipley pleaded guilty to armed bank robbery, the district court1

sentenced him to life imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c)(1)(A)(I) (requiring

mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for certain violent felons). For reversal,

Shipley contends section 3559(c)(1)(A)(I) violates his Fifth Amendment rights to equal

protection and due process, as well as his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel

and unusual punishment. We affirm Shipley’s sentence.
-2-

Shipley’s equal protection and Eighth Amendment contentions are foreclosed by

United States v. Farmer, 73 F.3d 836, 839-41 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 2570

(1996), and we also reject his due process challenge. See United States v. Washington,

109 F.3d 335, 338 (7th Cir.) (§ 3559(c)(10(A)(i) does not violate due process), cert.

denied, 118 S. Ct. 134 (1997); cf. United States v. Prior, 107 F.3d 654, 658 (8th Cir.

1997) (upholding 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii) against due process attack).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SIMEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IN
FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999. (IN THOUSANDS)
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                         17,610
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,610
<CGS>                                           14,141
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,141
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 176
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,205
<INCOME-TAX>                                       466
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                739
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       739
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.06


</TABLE>