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






CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350






In
connection with this Quarterly Report of Green Planet Solutions, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Herbert Schaffer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:




1.
            Such
      Yearly Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2007,
      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 such Yearly Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the
      period ending December 31, 2007, fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Green
      Planet Solutions, Inc.




Dated:
October 1, 2008






By: /s/ Herbert
Schaffer


Herbert
Schaffer


Chief
Executive Officer,


Chief
Financial Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

Under the authority granted to me as Acting Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service by the General Counsel of the Department of the Treasury by General Counsel Directive 15, pursuant to the Civil Service Reform Act, I have appointed the following persons to the Legal Division Performance Review Board, Internal Revenue Service Panel:

1. Brian Callanan, Deputy General Counsel

2. Mary Beth Murphy, Commissioner (Small Business/Self Employed), IRS

3. Donna C. Hansberry, Chief (Appeals), IRS

Alternate—Doug W. O'Donnell, Commissioner (Large Business & International), IRS

This publication is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4).

Dated: October 20, 2017.

William M. Paul,

Acting Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service.

[FR Doc. 2017-23719 Filed 10-31-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### Doris N. ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-1824.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 16, 2011.

Decided: April 13, 2011.

Doris N. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Jill Stricklin Cox, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; John James Doyle, Jr., Candice S. Wooten, Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Doris N. Anderson appeals the district court’s order affirming the clerk’s taxation of costs and awarding costs to the Defendant. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Anderson v. Duke Energy Corp.,*No. 3:06-cv-00399-MR-DCK, 2010 WL 2509904 (W.D.N.C. June 22, 2010). 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.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael Sean GREEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-50291

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 22, 2010.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

M. Carolyn Fuentes, Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Michael Sean Green appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea *912conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana. The district court sentenced Green to a within-guidelines sentence of 90 months in prison and four years of supervised release. He argues that his sentence was substantively unreasonable because: (1) the drug-trafficking guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, tends to overstate the sentence necessary in a mine-run case because it is not based upon empirical data; (2) his risk of recidivism is low because he is a first-time offender; and (3) his devotion to his young son warranted a lower sentence.

As Green did not challenge the drug-trafficking guideline as flawed in district court, that challenge is reviewed only for plain error. *See United States v. Campos-Maldonado,*531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008). His challenge to the drug-trafficking guideline based upon its alleged lack of supporting empirical data is unpersuasive. *See United States v. Mondragon-Santia-go,*564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*—- U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 192, 175 L.Ed.2d 120 (2009); *Campos-Maldonado,*531 F.3d at 338-39. His within-guideline sentence is afforded a presumption of reasonableness. *See Mondragon-Santiago,*564 F.3d at 367. Green has not shown sufficient reason for this court to disturb the sentence imposed by the district court.

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Darlin Isou MUNOZ-OYUELA, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Darlin Esau Oyuela-Munos, also known as Darlin Isou Munoz-Oyuela, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 10-40244, 10-40291

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 19, 2011.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kimberly S. Keller, Keller Law Firm, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Darlin Isou Munoz-Oyuela has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in *372accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Munoz-Oyuela has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeals present no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

January 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129399 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

MARIO GATCHALIAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 129399 

 COA: 262004 

Kent CC: 77-032800-DM 

FELICIDAD GATCHALIAN, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 21, 2005 order 

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. 

s0120 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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 27, 2006 

Clerk
Opinion issued June 25 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

NO. 01

- 13

- 00127

- CV

PAUL OUZE N NE AND OUZE N NE CONSTRUCTION COMP ANY , Appellant s

V.

LEON SHANKLE AND MARGIE B ENTON SHANKLE , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 129th Civil District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2003

- 13270



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant s, Paul Ouze n ne and Ouze n ne Construction Company , ha ve neither paid the required fees nor established indigence for purposes of appellate2

costs. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 5, 20.1; see also T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 51.207 ( West
Supp. 201 2 ), § 51.941(a) ( West 2005), § 101.041 ( West Supp. 201 2 ); Order
Regarding Fees Ch arged in Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of
Appeals and Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket

No. 07

- 9138 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2007), reprinted in T EX

. R. A PP

. P . app. A § B(1)

. After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant s did not
adequately respond. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 5; 42.3(c).
We dismiss the appeal for nonpayment of all required fees. We dismiss any
pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Brown, and Huddle.
#### Marzena CHOWDHURY; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

Nos. 04-73328, 05-70508.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 22, 2008.*

Filed May 2, 2008.

Orit Levit, Korenberg Abramowitz & Feldun a Law Corporation, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioners.

M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Jason S. Patil, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Larry P. Cote, Washington, DC, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated petitions, Marzena Chowdhury and her family, natives and citizens of Bangladesh, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying withholding of removal and review of the BIA order denying their motion to reconsider its order denying their motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence, *Baballah v. Ashcroft,*367 F.3d 1067, 1073 (9th Cir.2004), *and*we deny petition No. 04-73328 and dismiss petition No. 05-70508.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Chowdhury could reasonably relocate to another part of Bangladesh. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b); *see Cuadras v. INS, 910*F.2d 567, 571 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1990).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). *See Ekimian v. INS,*303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).

No. 04-73328 PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED;

No. 05-70508 PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and *is not*precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
December 3, 2015
N o. 04

- 15

- 00500

- CV
IN THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF S.W. , From the Probate Court No 1, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2015

- MH

- 2596 Kelly Cross, Judge Presiding
N o. 04

- 15

- 00505

- CV
THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF S.W.

From the Probate Court No 1, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2015

- MH

- 2544 Kelly Cross, Judge Presiding



### ORDER Appellee's motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. Time is extended to December 21, 2015.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 3rd day of December, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

      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 Alaska Communications Systems
Holdings, Inc. ("Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
("Report"), I, David Wilson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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),
    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.

Date: November 10, 2004        /s/ David Wilson
                               -------------------------------------------------
                               David Wilson
                               Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                               Alaska Communications Systems Holdings, Inc.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 16

- 17780 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 0:16

- cr - 60117

- DTKH

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus ANTHONY SWABY, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ ( August 29, 2017 ) Before TJOFLAT , WILSON, and WILLIAM PRYOR , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-17780 Date Filed: 08/29/2017 Page: 1 of 32 Anthony Swaby appeals his 120

- month , below

- the

- guideline

- range sentence, after pleading guilty to two counts of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). On appeal, Swaby argues that he was incorrectly classified and sente nced as a career offender. Swaby argues that his previous convictio n under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1) , does not qualify as a controlled substance offense under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b) because the statute does not contain a mens rea element

. Although he acknowl edges that in United States v. Smith , 775 F.3d 1262, 1268 (11th Cir. 2014),

we held that § 893.13 qualifies as a controlled substance offense, he argues that Smith conflicts with several Supreme Court decisions. We review constitutional sentencing challenges de novo , which includes the question of whether a defendant’s prior convictions qualify as controlled substance offenses for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b). See Smith , 775 F.3d at 1265. And “[w] e are bound by [ our ] p rior panel decisions unless and until we overrule them while sitting en banc , or they are overruled by the Supreme Court.” United States v. Jordan , 635 F.3d 1181, 1189 (11th Cir. 2011). In other words, “[w]e are authorized to depart from a prior panel de cision based upon an intervening Supreme Court decision only if that decision actually overruled or conflicted with it.” United States v. Marte , 356 F.3d 1336, 1344 (11th Cir. 2004) ( internal quotation marks omitted).

Case: 16-17780 Date Filed: 08/29/2017 Page: 2 of 33 Swaby relies on Begay v. United States , 553 U.S. 137, 128 S. Ct. 1581 (2008), Elonis v. United States , 575 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015) , and McFadden v. United States , 576 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2298 (2015) for the proposition that Smith has been overruled. However we are n ot convinced that those ca ses overrule or conflict with Smith

. T herefore, because no Supreme Court

or en banc decision has overruled the holding from Smith , the prior panel precedent rule bound s us to that holding

. See Marte , 356 F.3d at 1344. W e affirm Swaby’s
sentence. AFFIRMED. Case: 16-17780 Date Filed: 08/29/2017 Page: 3 of 3
#### In re Erik NIELSEN; Kathryn R. Nielsen, Debtors. Kathryn R. Nielsen, Appellant v. ACS, Inc.; Educational Credit Management Corporation, Appellees. In re Erik Nielsen; Kathryn R. Nielsen, Debtors. *655Kathryn R. Nielsen, Appellant v. Iowa Student Loan Liquidity Corporation; Educational Credit Management Corporation, Appellees.

No. 13-2518.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 21, 2014.

Filed: Feb. 10, 2014.

Kathryn R. Nielsen, Red Oak, IA, pro se.

Laura R. Luetje, Brooke Van Vliet, Brick *&*Gentry, West Des Moines, IA, Matthew Charles McDermott, Belin *&*McCormick, Des Moines, IA, for Appel-lees.

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Kathryn Nielsen appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (BAP’s) order dismissing as untimely her appeal of the bankruptcy court’s May 24, 2013 order in an adversary proceeding. Nielsen filed her notice of appeal on June 9. Because we find no indication that the bankruptcy court filed a separate written judgment as required, *see*Fed. R. Bankr.P. 7058 (Fed. R.Civ.P. 58 applies in adversary proceedings); Fed.R.Civ.P. 58(a) (every judgment and amended judgment must be set out in separate document), we conclude that judgment on the May 24 order was not deemed to be “entered” until Monday, October 21, *see*Fed.R.Civ.P. 58(a)(c) (if separate document is required, judgment is deemed entered when judgment is set forth in separate document, or 150 days have passed after entry of order, whichever occurs first); *Drewes v. Vote (In re Vote),*276 F.3d 1024, 1026 (8th Cir.2002) (standard of review). Thus, Nielsen’s June 9 notice of appeal was timely as to the bankruptcy court’s order. *See*Fed. R. Bankr.P. 8002(a) (petitioner must appeal order within 14 days after its entry); Fed. R. Bankr.P. 9006(a)(1) (rules for computing time period); *cf. Chambers v. City of Fordyce, Ark.,*508 F.3d 878, 880-81 (8th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (where order disposing of case was not followed by entry of judgment in separate document as required, notice of appeal filed before expiration of 150 days was premature but still timely). Accordingly, we vacate the BAP’s dismissal order, and remand to the BAP for further proceedings.
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

The undersigned, Hans Ephraimson, Chief Executive Officer of DB Commodity Services LLC, the Managing Owner of PowerShares DB G10 Currency
Harvest Fund (the Fund), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Funds Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Annual Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Fund.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                        
|------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: June 18, 2010 |  | /s/Hans Ephraimson     
|                    |  | Hans Ephraimson        
|                    |  | Chief Executive Officer
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

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of Community Bancorp Inc. (the Company) that the Quarterly Report of
the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of such period and the results of operations of the Company for such period.

|Date | November 12, 2002                           |                                       | /s/ THOMAS E. SWANSON   | 
|---- | ------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------- | ----------------------- | 
|     |                                             |                                       |                         | 
|     |                                             | Thomas E. Swanson                     |                        
|     |                                             | President and Chief Executive Officer |                        
|    
|     |                                             |                                       |                        
|Date | November 12, 2002                           |                                       | /s/ L. BRUCE MILLS, JR. | 
|     |                                             |                                       |                         | 
|     | L. Bruce Mills, Jr.                         |                                      
|     | Sr. Vice President, Chief Financial Officer |                                      
|     |                                             |                                       |                         |
Exhibit 10.6


 


 


EXHIBIT B-5


 


ALLONGE


 


This Allonge is made to that Senior Secured Incremental
Note, certificate B-4, dated October 25, 2021 (the “Note”), in the original principal sum of four hundred ninety-seven thousand
four hundred and ninety-five dollars and twenty-eight cents ($497,495.28) issued by Pareteum Corporation, a Delaware corporation to Channel
Ventures Group, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, pursuant to that certain Joinder Agreement dated November 26, 2021 and subject
to the terms of that Securities Purchase Agreement dated as of June 8, 2020, as amended from time to time.


 


Pay to the order of Circles MVNE Pte. Ltd., WITHOUT
REPRESENTATION, WARRANTY OR RECOURSE WHATSOEVER, except as expressly set forth in the Note Sale Contract dated as of April 25, 2022,
made and entered into by and between the undersigned, as seller, and Circles MVNE Pte. Ltd., as purchaser and acknowledged and agreed
to by Pareteum Corporation, as issuer.


 


Dated as of April 25, 2022.





 


	 	CHANNEL VENTURES GROUP, LLC
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Markwin Maring
	 	Name: Markwin Maring
	 	Title: Statutory Director