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

 

 

**Certificationsof**

**Chief ExecutiveOfficer and Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**as AdoptedPursuant to**

**Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

We, William J. Volz, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer, and Kimiko Milheim, Chief Financial Officer, of LOGIC DevicesIncorporated (the Company), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that, based on our knowledge:

 

| (1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the registrant, to  which this certification is attached as an exhibit (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 this Report fairly  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of  operations of the Company.                                                                             |

| Dated: December 20, 2004                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                | By:   /s/  William J.  Volz                         |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| William J. Volz, President and

Chief Executive Officer

Dated: December 20, 2004

By:   /s/  Kimiko  Milheim                       

Kimiko Milheim,

Chief Financial Officer

 

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to LOGIC DevicesIncorporated and will be retained by LOGIC Devices Incorporated and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. |
Exhibit 23


                         Consent of Independent Auditors




The Board of Directors
Markel Corporation

We consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
33-28921, No. 33-46706 and No. 33-61598 on Form S-8 of Markel Corporation of our
report dated February 3, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Markel Corporation and subsidiaries (the "Company") as of December 31, 1997 and
1996, and the related consolidated statements of income and comprehensive
income, changes in shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in
the three-year period ended December 31, 1997, which report appears in the
Company's 1997 annual report on Form 10-K.





                                                    KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP
Richmond, Virginia
March 27, 1998
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001058560
<NAME> EVEREST HEALTHCARE SERVICES CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      4,782,224
<SECURITIES>                                        0         
<RECEIVABLES>                              55,144,636
<ALLOWANCES>                              (7,598,000)
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           13,526,284
<PP&E>                                     29,403,309
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            202,112,556
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      31,835,792
<BONDS>                                   100,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       12,885
<OTHER-SE>                                 58,903,318
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              202,112,556
<SALES>                                    83,445,170 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           83,445,170
<CGS>                                      52,601,863         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              76,946,494 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          5,807,056
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             1,887,304
<INCOME-TAX>                                1,226,747
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           660,557
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                  660,557
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0
        

</TABLE>
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

BAC 6735-01

January 5, 2015

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Thursday, January 15, 2015

PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004 (enter from 

F Street entrance)

STATUS: Open 

MATTERS TO BE 

CONSIDERED: The Commission will hear oral argument in the matter Secretary of 

Labor v. Jim Walter Resources, Inc., Docket No. SE 2012-681-R

(Issues include whether the Administrative Law Judge erred in

upholding an imminent danger order.)

Any person attending this oral argument who requires special 

accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 

interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those 

needs. Subject to 29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON 

FOR MORE INFO: Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

Relay / 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

__________________________________

Sarah L. Stewart

Deputy General Counsel
#### Raymond GLADDEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.L. RUNNELS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 07-16485.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2008.*

Filed May 16, 2008.

Eric M. Weaver, Esq., Law Offices of Eric M. Weaver, Albany, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Doris A. Calandra, Esq., AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, HAWKINS, and MeKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Raymond Gladden (“Gladden”) challenges the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under *45528 U.S.C. § 2254, asserting that he suffered from ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed to request a voluntary manslaughter instruction. We affirm the district court’s denial of his habeas petition.

Federal habeas relief is warranted only if adjudication of the claim resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). We examine the decision of Shasta County Superior Court, as it is the last reasoned court decision on the claim raised in this appeal. *Luna v. Cambra,*306 F.3d 954, 960 n. 3 (9th Cir.2002), *amended by*311 F.3d 928 (9th Cir.2002).

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that (1) counsel’s performance was deficient; and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. *Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 687, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Judicial assessment of counsel’s performance “must be highly deferential,” and a court “must indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within a wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” *Id.*at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052.

Even though the record may have supported a voluntary manslaughter instruction, counsel’s failure to request such an instruction did not fall outside this wide range of professional assistance. Counsel’s trial strategy was to show that Gladden was not responsible for the events that led to Duane McBroome’s death, and that Gladden did not aid or abet any offense committed by Mark Foley and Pat-rick Cummings. Viewing the matter at the time of counsel’s decision, and avoiding the “distorting effects of hindsight,” *id.*at 689-90, 104 S.Ct. 2052, it was objectively reasonable for Gladden’s counsel not to request a voluntary manslaughter instruction. But, even if this strategy were deemed deficient, given the substantial evidence supporting his conviction for kidnapping for extortion and the jury’s finding that a killing occurred during its course, Gladden was not prejudiced.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3489 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3489

 To require creditors to establish a phone line to assist obligors who 
are 50 years of age and older to resolve billing errors, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 25, 2021

 Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois (for himself, Mr. Mfume, Mr. Waltz, Ms. 
 Porter, Mr. Keller, Mr. Kim of New Jersey, Mr. Kelly of Mississippi, 
Mr. Case, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Van Drew, Mr. Carson, Mr. 
 Pappas, Mr. O'Halleran, and Ms. Wild) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require creditors to establish a phone line to assist obligors who 
are 50 years of age and older to resolve billing errors, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Reporting Instances of Non-
authorized Grift Act of 2021'' or the ``RING Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. BILLING ERROR ASSISTANCE.

    Section 161 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1666) is amended 
by adding at the end the following:
    ``(f) Billing Error Assistance.--
            ``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
        the enactment of this subsection, each creditor shall--
                    ``(A) establish and publish the phone number for a 
                toll-free phone line that is dedicated to directly 
                assisting obligors age 50 and older to navigate the 
                process described in this section for resolving billing 
                errors, including the mitigation of fraudulent 
                activity; and
                    ``(B) provide a clear, understandable, and 
                prominent notice to such obligors of the availability 
                of such phone line through, email, websites, mailings, 
                and other forms of communication as determined helpful 
                and appropriate by the creditor.
            ``(2) Personally identifiable information.--Each creditor 
        shall ensure that the operator of any phone line established 
        pursuant to paragraph (1) does not require any obligor to 
        disclose personally identifiable information, including a 
        social security number, to verify the age of such obligor.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

DIVALL INSURED INCOME PROPERTIES 2

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

Certification of Periodic Financial Report

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned principal
executive officer and principal financial officer of Divall Insured Income Properties 2 Limited Partnership (the Company) certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2013 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.



|                         |  |                                          |  |                                                                                                        
|------------------------ |  | ---------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                         |  | DIVALL INSURED INCOME PROPERTIES 2, L.P.
|                         |  |                                         
|Dated: November 12, 2013 |  | By:                                      |  | /s/ Lynette L. DeRose                                                                                  
|                         |  |                                          |  | Chief Financial Officer                                                                                
|                         | 
|                         |  | THE PROVO GROUP, INC., General Partner  
|                         |  |                                         
|                         |  | By:                                      |  | /s/ Bruce A. Provo                                                                                     
|                         |  |                                          |  | President, and Chief Executive Officer of the Provo Group, Inc., the General Partner of the Partnership
|                         |  |                                          |  | (principal executive officer of the registrant)                                                        

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge
standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

*July 21, 2014*

[Cite as *07/21/2014 Case Announcements,*2014-Ohio-3173.]

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2014- 1126.

#### Radatz v. Fed. Natl. Mtge. Assn.

Cuyahoga App. No. 100205, 2014-Ohio-2179. This cause is pending before the court as a jurisdictional appeal.

Upon consideration of the motion for admission *pro*hac vice of Stephen E. Hart, it is ordered by the court that the motion is granted. Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days of the date of this entry.
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-                   Secretary of Labor v. Warrior Coal, LLC              

#   Secretary of Labor v. Warrior Coal, LLC

Warrior Coal KENT 2011- 1259 et al. Meeting Notice 10-8-15.pdf

Warrior Coal KENT 2011- 1259 et al. Meeting Notice 10-8-15.htm

secretary-labor-v-warrior-coal-docketkent-2011-1259-r-etal.mp3

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: 771-210-1887 TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
EXHIBIT
32.3


CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
officer of Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to
such officer’s knowledge, that:





The
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 27, 2008 (the “Form
10-K”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in the
Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.











Date:  December
      11, 2008
            /s/ Richard A. CogdillRichard
      A. CogdillChief
      Financial and Accounting Officer
<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 FragranceNet.com, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Dennis M. Apfel, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and 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, 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 result of operations of the Company.

By:  /s/ Dennis M. Apfel
     ------------------------------------
     Chairman, Chief Executive
     Officer and Chief Financial Officer


February 12, 2004
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AMBER LANPHERE and PAUL M.

MATHESON, individually, and on behalf

of others similarly situated,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

CHAD WRIGHT, Puyallup Tribe Tax

Department, Enforcement Officer, and the

PUYALLUP INDIAN TRIBE, a

recognized American Indian Tribe,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-36035

D.C. No. CV-09-05462-BHS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 13, 2010** 

Seattle, Washington

Before: REINHARDT, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

FILED

JUL 15 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Plaintiffs Amber Lanphere and Paul Matheson appeal the district court’s

order dismissing, for failure to exhaust tribal remedies, this action against

Defendants Puyallup Indian Tribe and Chad Wright, head of the Puyallup Tribal

Tax Department, concerning the imposition by the Tribe of certain cigarette taxes

on non-Indians. Reviewing de novo, Boozer v. Wilder, 381 F.3d 931, 934 (9th Cir.

2004), we affirm.

Plaintiffs correctly state that exhaustion of tribal court remedies is not

required "when it is ‘plain’ that tribal court jurisdiction is lacking, so that the

exhaustion requirement ‘would serve no purpose other than delay.’" Elliott v.

White Mountain Apache Tribal Court, 566 F.3d 842, 847 (9th Cir.) (quoting

Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353, 369 (2001)), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 624 (2009). 

The district court correctly held, however, that tribal court "jurisdiction is

‘colorable’ or ‘plausible,’" and, therefore, that tribal court jurisdiction is not plainly

lacking. Id. at 848 (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs voluntarily

availed themselves of the tribal court’s jurisdiction by filing these same claims

before that tribunal. See Smith v. Salish Kootenai Coll., 434 F.3d 1127, 1140 (9th

Cir. 2006) (en banc) ("We hold that a nonmember who knowingly enters tribal

courts for the purpose of filing suit against a tribal member has, by the act of filing

his claims, entered into a ‘consensual relationship’ with the tribe within the
3

meaning of Montana [v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981)]."). Additionally,

Plaintiffs voluntarily engaged in commercial activities—the purchase and sale of

cigarettes—on tribal lands. See Montana, 450 U.S. at 565 (holding that tribal

courts have jurisdiction over nonmembers who enter into commercial dealings on

the reservation with the tribe or its members). For those reasons, tribal court

jurisdiction is plausible, and exhaustion of tribal court remedies is required. (At

this stage of the proceedings, we need not, and do not, decide definitively whether

the tribal courts have jurisdiction.)

We reject Plaintiffs’ other contentions.

AFFIRMED.