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 Annual Report of Pacific Alliance Corporation (the            “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed            with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the            “Report”), I, Mark A. Scharmann, President and Principal Executive Officer            of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to            Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my            knowledge:

 

(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.

 

Dated:  April 11, 2008

 

/s/ Mark A. Scharmann

 

Mark            A. Scharmann

President/Principal Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT      32 **

*A      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been      provided to California First National Bancorp and will be retained by California      First National Bancorp and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission      or its staff upon request. *

*The        forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange        Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for        purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,        and        is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether        made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation        language in such filing*

----
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3158 

To repeal certain obsolete laws relating to Indians. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 12, 2021 

Mr. O’HALLERAN (for himself, Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota, and Mr. 

COLE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To repeal certain obsolete laws relating to Indians. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Repealing Existing 

5 Substandard Provisions Encouraging Conciliation with 

6 Tribes Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF CERTAIN OBSOLETE LAWS RELATING 

8 TO INDIANS. 

9 (1) Section 2080 of the Revised Statutes (25 

10 U.S.C. 72) is repealed. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3158 IH

1 (2) Section 2100 of the Revised Statutes (25 

2 U.S.C. 127) is repealed. 

3 (3) Section 2 of the Act of March 3, 1875 (18 

4 Stat. 449, chapter 132; 25 U.S.C. 128), is repealed. 

5 (4) The first section of the Act of March 3, 

6 1875 (18 Stat. 424, chapter 132; 25 U.S.C. 129), 

7 is amended under the heading ‘‘CHEYENNES 

8 AND ARAPAHOES.’’ by striking ‘‘; that the Sec9 retary of the Interior be authorized to withhold, 

10 from any tribe of Indians who may hold any captives 

11 other than Indians, any moneys due them from the 

12 United States until said captives shall be surren13 dered to the lawful authorities of the United 

14 States’’. 

15 (5) Section 2087 of the Revised Statutes (25 

16 U.S.C. 130) is repealed. 

17 (6) Section 3 of the Act of March 3, 1875 (18 

18 Stat. 449, chapter 132; 25 U.S.C. 137), is repealed. 

19 (7) Section 2101 of the Revised Statutes (25 

20 U.S.C. 138) is repealed. 

21 (8) Section 7 of the Act of June 23, 1879 (21 

22 Stat. 35, chapter 35; 25 U.S.C. 273), is repealed. 

23 (9) The first section of the Act of March 3, 

24 1893 (27 Stat. 612, chapter 209), is amended— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3158 IH

1 (A) under the heading ‘‘MISCELLA2 NEOUS SUPPORTS.’’ (27 Stat. 628; 25 

3 U.S.C. 283), by striking the last 2 undesig4 nated paragraphs; and 

5 (B) under the heading ‘‘FOR SUPPORT 

6 OF SCHOOLS.’’ (27 Stat. 635; 25 U.S.C. 

7 283), by striking the second undesignated para8 graph. 

9 (10) Section 18 of the Act of June 30, 1913 

10 (38 Stat. 96, chapter 4; 25 U.S.C. 285), is amended 

11 by striking the tenth undesignated paragraph. 

12 (11) The Act of June 21, 1906 (34 Stat. 325, 

13 chapter 3504), is amended under the heading 

14 ‘‘COMMISSIONER.’’ under the heading ‘‘I. GEN15 ERAL PROVISIONS.’’ (34 Stat. 328; 25 U.S.C. 

16 302) by striking the fourth undesignated paragraph. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>


                                                             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 Paragon Financial Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven
A. Burleson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:


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

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


/s/ STEVEN A. BURLESON
----------------------
Steven A. Burleson
Chief Executive Officer
August 18, 2003

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.

The foregoing certification accompanied the Form 10-Q filing pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350. It is being reproduced herein for information only. It is not
being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and it is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of New
Century, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.
#### Antonio COLBERT, Appellant v. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT 5, Appellee.

No. 10-7153.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Dec. 23, 2010.

Antonio Colbert, Washington, DC, pro se.

Donna M. Murasky, Esquire, Deputy Solicitor, Office of the Attorney General, District of Columbia, Office of the Solicitor General, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

BEFORE: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, and GINSBURG and TATEL, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by the appellant. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order issued November 3, 2010, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed appellant’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to support a claim of discrimination. *See Atherton v. D.C. Office of the Mayor,*567 F.3d 672, 681-82 (D.C.Cir.2009) (“A complaint must give the defendants notice of the claims and the grounds upon which they rest.... [E]ven a pro se complaint must plead ‘factual matter’ that permits the court to infer ‘more than the mere possibility of misconduct.’ ”); *see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal,*— U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1952, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. RApp. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 60553 Summary Calendar

DANIEL PAZO

- RICANO , Petitioner

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL , Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A074 015 979

Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judge s
. PER CURIAM: * Daniel Pazo

- Ricano, a native and citizen of Cuba, petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ ) grant of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) motion for reconsideration and of the IJ’s denial of his motion to reopen . He contends that the IJ and the B IA failed to consider that he was eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility pursuant to 8 U.S .C. § 1182(h) in 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 April 21, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-60553 Document: 00512603072 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2014N o
. 13

- 60553
light of this court’s d ecision in Martinez v. Mukasey , 519 F.3d 532 (5th Cir. 2008). Further, Pazo

- Ricano c ontends that his eligibility for a waiver of inadmissibility was an exceptional circumstance warranting sua sponte reopening an d that he was entitled to equitable tolling from the date of the Martinez decision until he could consult with counsel and file his motion to
reopen. Because Pazo

- Ricano seeks review of the decision to deny a motion to reopen sua sponte, and because such authority is discretionary, we lack jurisdiction. See Ramos

- Bonilla v. Mukasey , 543 F.3d 216, 219 (5th Cir. 2008) ; Enriquez

- Alvarado v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 246, 249

- 50 (5th Cir. 2004)

. Moreover, Pazo

- Ricano did not argue before the BIA that he was eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility in light of Martinez , that his eligibility for a waiver of inadmissibility following Martinez was an exceptional circumstance warranting reopening , or that he was entitled to equitable tolling between the dat e of the M artinez decision and the filing of his motion to reopen. Pazo

Ricano’s failure to exhaust these issues deprives this court of jurisdiction. See Said v. Gonzales , 488 F.3d 668, 670

- 71 (5th Cir. 2007); Roy v. Ashcroft , 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004)

. To the extent that Pazo

- Ricano asserts that he seeks review of the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal of the IJ’s grant of the respondent’s motion for reconsideration, he has presented no argument in support of this issue and, thus, has abandoned it for purposes of the petition for review. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft , 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987)

. PETITION DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION; DENIED IN PART.

2 Case: 13-60553 Document: 00512603072 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2014
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7127

HERMAN L. MOODY,

Petitoner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CA-01-83)

Submitted: November 8, 2001 Decided: November 16, 2001

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Herman L. Moody, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Herman L. Moody seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

Moody’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Moody v.

Angelone, No. CA-01-83 (E.D. Va. June 18, 2001). 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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 10.6

                               AMENDMENT NUMBER 2

                                       to

                                COMMERCIAL LEASE

      This LEASE AMENDMENT NUMBER 2 ("Amendment") dated September 20, 2007,
between Randall Corporation, as Landlord, and BioForce Nanosciences, Inc., as
Tenant, amends the lease consisting of the Commercial Lease dated November 19,
2004, and Lease Amendment Number 1 dated January 2, 2007 (collectively, the
"Lease").

      1. All terms of the Lease shall continue in full force and effect except
as expressly modified in this Amendment. All terms of the Lease shall apply to
this Amendment, except in the event and to the extent they are expressly
modified herein, in which case the terms of this Amendment shall control. All
capitalized terms used in the Amendment not otherwise defined shall have the
same meaning as in the Lease.

      2. The parties agree to extend the duration of the Lease for an additional
six (6) months upon the same terms and conditions set forth in the Lease.
Accordingly, the new Lease end date is July 31, 2008. Thereafter, the lease
shall continue from month to month, terminable upon six (6) months prior written
notice provided after July 31, 2008.

      3. This Amendment shall be binding upon and insure to the benefit of the
parties hereto and their respective successors, heirs and assigns.

      4. Landlord and Tenant warrant and represent that the person(s) signing
this Amendment has the full and proper authority to do so and has been empowered
to make and execute this Amendment in the name of such party.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Landlord and Tenant have caused this Amendment to be
executed on the day and year first written above.

LANDLORD                                          TENANT

Randall Corporation                               BioForce Nanosciences, Inc.


By: /s/ Matthew D. Randall                        By: /s/ Kerry Frey
    --------------------------                        --------------------------
    Name:  Matthew D. Randall                         Name:  Kerry Frey
    Title: Vice President                             Title: President
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3256 

To prohibit Federal funding to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 14, 2021 

Mr. PERRY (for himself, Mr. MAST, Mr. POSEY, Mr. RESCHENTHALER, Mr. 

GOHMERT, Mr. TIFFANY, Mr. DUNCAN, Mrs. HARSHBARGER, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. STEUBE, Mr. GIBBS, Mr. CAWTHORN, Mr. VAN

DREW, and Mr. JACKSON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit Federal funding to the Wuhan Institute of 

Virology. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Defund the Wuhan 

5 Institute of Virology Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3256 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDING TO THE 

2 WUHAN INSTITUTE OF VIROLOGY. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—No funds authorized or appro4 priated by Federal law may be made available for any pur5 pose to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. 

6 (b) GAO STUDY AND REPORT.—Not later than 2 

7 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 

8 Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct 

9 a study, and submit to Congress a report, on the amount 

10 of Federal funds awarded or indirectly given to Wuhan 

11 Institute of Virology or researchers affiliated with Wuhan 

12 Institute of Virology, during the 15-year period preceding 

13 such date of enactment were provided, whether purposely 

14 or inadvertently, to the People’s Republic of China, Chi15 nese Communist Party, or the Wuhan Institute of Virol16 ogy, or any agency or instrumentality thereof. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 23.2

 NOTICE REGARDING CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended
(the "Securities Act"), provides that if any part of a
registration statement at the time such part becomes
effective contains an untrue statement of a material fact
or an omission to state a material fact required to be
stated therein or necessary to make the statements
therein not misleading, any person acquiring a security
pursuant to such registration statement (unless it is
proved that at the time of such acquisition such person
knew of such untruth or omission) may sue, among others,
every accountant who has consented to be named as having
prepared or certified any part of the registration
statement, or as having prepared or certified any report
or valuation which is used in connection with the
registration statement, with respect to the statement in
such registration statement, report or valuation which
purports to have been prepared or certified by the
accountant.

As previously disclosed in the HemaCare Corporation's
form 8-K filed on June 27, 2002, HemaCare Corporation
dismissed Arthur Andersen LLP as its independent public
accountants and announced that the Company had appointed
Ernst & Young LLP to replace Arthur Andersen LLP as its
independent public accountants.

HemaCare's understanding is that the staff of the
Securities and Exchange Commission has taken the position
that it will not accept consents from Arthur Andersen LLP
if the engagement partner and the manager for the
HemaCare Corporation audit are no longer with Arthur
Andersen LLP. Both the engagement partner and the manager
for the HemaCare Corporation audit are no longer with
Arthur Andersen LLP. As a result, HemaCare has been
unable to obtain Arthur Andersen LLP's written consent to
the incorporation by reference into the Registration
Statements of its audit report with respect to the
Company's financial statements as of December 31, 2001
and 2000 for the years then ended.

Under these circumstances, Rule 437a under the Securities
Act permits HemaCare Corporation to file this Form 10-K
without a written consent from Arthur Andersen LLP. As a
result, however, Arthur Andersen LLP will not have any
liability under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act for
any untrue statements of a material fact contained in the
financial statements audited by Arthur Andersen LLP or
any omissions of a material fact required to be stated
therein. Accordingly, you would be unable to assert a
claim against Arthur Andersen LLP under Section 11(a) of
the Securities Act for any purchases of securities under
the Registration Statements made on or after the date of
this Form 10-K. To the extent provided in Section
11(b)(3)(C) of the Securities Act, however, other persons
who are liable under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act,
including the Company's officers and directors, may still
rely on Arthur Andersen LLP's original audit reports as
being made by an expert for purposes of establishing a
due diligence defense under Section 11(b) of the
Securities Act.
#### Frank S. SMITH, Claimant-Appellant, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2013-7078.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 12, 2013.

Travis James West, Solheim Billing *&*Grimmer, S.C., of Madison, WI, argued for claimant-appellant.

William J. Grimaldi, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. On the brief were Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, Scott D. Austin, Assistant Director, and Eric P. Bruskin, Trial Attorney. Of counsel on the brief were David J. Barrans, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and Martie Adelman, Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC.

O’MALLEY, WALLACH, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is

Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
EXHIBIT 4.4

                         SUPPLEMENTAL WARRANT AGREEMENT

         This SUPPLEMENTAL WARRANT AGREEMENT is dated as of December 18, 1997 by
and between ELCOTEL, INC. ("Elcotel"), TECHNOLOGY SERVICE GROUP, INC. ("TSG"),
and BROOKEHILL EQUITIES, INC. (the "Representative").

         WHEREAS, TSG and the Representative entered into a Representative's
Warrant Agreement, dated as of May 10, 1996 (the "Warrant Agreement");

         WHEREAS, Elcotel, TSG and Elcotel Hospitality Services, Inc. ("EHS")
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated August 13, 1997, as amended
(the "Merger Agreement") pursuant to which EHS, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Elcotel, has merged on the date hereof with and into TSG and TSG has become a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Elcotel (the "Merger");

         WHEREAS, each share of common stock, par value $.01 per share, of TSG
("TSG Common Stock") issued and outstanding immediately prior to the
consummation of the Merger has been converted into the right to receive 1.05
shares of common stock, par value $.01 per share, of Elcotel ("Elcotel Common
Stock");

         WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 1.05(b) of the Merger Agreement, at the
effective time of the Merger, each of the warrants issued under the Warrant
Agreement (the "Warrants") will be adjusted as a result of the Merger.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties hereto,
intending to be legally bound hereby, agree as follows:

         1.       The  parties  hereto  agree  that  each  Warrant   outstanding
                  immediately prior to the effective time of the Merger shall be
                  adjusted  as of the  effective  time  of the  Merger  so as to
                  constitute,  and  shall  become,  a  warrant  to  acquire,  on
                  substantially the same terms and conditions as were applicable
                  to such Warrant  under the Warrant  Agreement,  1.05 shares of
                  Elcotel  Common  Stock for each share of TSG Common  Stock for
                  which such Warrant could have been exercised immediately prior
                  to the effective time of the Merger.


<PAGE>

         2.       This Agreement may be executed in any number of  counterparts,
                  each of which  shall  be an  original,  but such  counterparts
                  shall together constitute but one instrument.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the parties hereto have executed this Supplemental  Warrant
Agreement as of the date first above written.

TECHNOLOGY SERVICE GROUP, INC.              ELCOTEL, INC.

BY:  /s/  Vincent C. Bisceglia              By:  /s/ Tracey L. Gray
     ----------------------------                ----------------------
     Name:  Vincent C. Bisceglia                 Name:  Tracey L. Gray
     Title:  President                           Title:  President

BROOKEHILL EQUITIES, INC.

By:  ----------------------------
     Name:
     Title:


                                       2