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 The National Bank of Indianapolis
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Morris L. Maurer, Chief 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:

    (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.

/s/ Morris L. Maurer
-----------------------
Morris L. Maurer
Chief Executive Officer
March 26, 2004


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 and not for any other purpose, and is subject to the knowledge
standard contained in 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.
Exhibit 21

                           Subsidiaries of Registrant


<PAGE>



                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                              Percent      State of
                                                                                 of      Incorporation
         Parent                          Subsidiary                          Ownership  or Organization
-------------------------------  ------------------------------------------  ---------  ---------------
<S>                              <C>                                            <C>         <C>
WesterFed Financial Corporation  Western Security Bank                          100%        Federal
Western Security Bank            Monte Mac I                                    100%        Montana
Western Security Bank            Western Security Investment Services, Inc.     100%        Montana
Western Security Bank            Service Corporation of Montana                 100%        Montana
Western Security Bank            WesterFed Insurance Services, Inc.             100%        Montana
</TABLE>
Corporate Passive Activity Loss and Credit Limitations OMB No. 1545-1091

Form 8810

 Attach to the corporation’s tax return (personal service

corporations and closely held corporations only). Department of the Treasury

Internal Revenue Service

Name Employer identification number

1999 Passive Activity Loss

1a Current year income (from Worksheet 2, column (a)) 1a

1b

b Current year deductions and losses (from Worksheet 2,

column (b))

c 1c

1d

d

2

2

3

3

4

4

6 6

7

7

8

8

9

9

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see separate instructions. Form 8810 (1999)

 See separate instructions.

Prior year unallowed losses (from Worksheet 2, column (c))

Combine lines 1a, 1b, and 1c. If the result is net income or zero, see page 8 of the

instructions

Closely held corporations enter net active income and see page 8 of the instructions.

Personal service corporations enter -0- on this line

Unallowed passive activity deductions and losses. Combine lines 1d and 2. If the

result is net income or zero, see the instructions for lines 1d and 3 on page 8.

Otherwise, go to line 4

Total deductions and losses allowed. Add the income, if any, on lines 1a and 2

and enter the result. See page 8 of the instructions

Prior year unallowed credits (from Worksheet 5, column (b))

Add lines 5a and 5b

Enter the tax attributable to net passive income and net active income. See page

10 of the instructions

Unallowed passive activity credit. Subtract line 7 from line 6. If the result is zero

or less, enter -0-

Allowed passive activity credit. Subtract line 8 from line 6. See page 11 of the

instructions

1999 Passive Activity Credits

b

5a 5a

5b

Current year credits (from Worksheet 5, column (a))

( )

( )

Part I

Part II

Cat. No. 10356T

Part III Election To Increase Basis of Credit Property

10 If the corporation disposed of its entire interest in a passive activity or former passive activity in a fully taxable

transaction, and the corporation elects to increase the basis of credit property used in that activity by the unallowed

credit that reduced the property’s basis, check this box. See page 12 of the instructions 

Name of passive activity disposed of 

Description of the credit property for which the election is being made 

Amount of unallowed credit that reduced the property’s basis  $

11

12

13

Caution: See the instructions and complete Worksheets 1 and 2 on page 7 before completing Part I.

Caution: See the instructions and complete Worksheet 5 on page 11 before completing Part II.

1999
<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

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in
connection with the Annual Report of Avondale Incorporated (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended August 27, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, G.
Stephen Felker, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certify that:




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

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



Date:  November 12, 2004    /s/ G. STEPHEN FELKER
       -----------------    ---------------------
                                G. Stephen Felker
                                Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
_______________________________________ __ ___________________ ________________ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan
May 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 133899 (23) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices LEWIS DOUGLAS, #137855

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 133899 CoA: 273659 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Defendant-Appellee.

On order of the Chief Ju stice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it is DENIED because MCL 600.2 963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be liable for filing fees. Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $74.00, shall submit a copy of this order with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being filed in this Court. If plaintiff timely files the partia l fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of the deposits made to plain tiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of $301.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court. Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file furth er appeals in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. The Clerk of the Court sh all furnish two copies of th is order to plaintiff and return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.

jm I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
May 29, 2007
Clerk
**Exhibit 32.2**CERTIFICATIONPursuant to 18      U.S.C. § 1350, I, Tucker I. Marr, Chief Financial Officer of Pruco      Life Insurance Company of New Jersey, hereby certify that the Company’s      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007,      containing the financial statements of Pruco Life Insurance Company of New      Jersey Variable Contract Real Property Account (a separate account of Pruco      Life of New Jersey Insurance Company of America) and The Prudential Variable      Contract Real Property Partnership (the “Report”), fully complies      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange      Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents,      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations      of The Prudential Variable Contract Real Property Account and The Prudential      Variable Contract Real Property Partnership.        Date: November 13, 2007                /s/ Tucker I. Marr   Tucker I. Marr  Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Collin Michael BAIRD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-50044.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 18, 2013.*

Filed March 28, 2014.

Anne Kristina Perry, Bruce R. Castet-ter, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Shereen Joy Charlick, Esquire, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Collin Michael Baird challenges the 78-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for receipt of images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Baird contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address his argument that the district court should exercise its discretion under *Kimbrough v. United States,*552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007) to vary downward. Because Baird did not object on these grounds in the district court, we review for plain error and Baird is therefore required to show that there is an error that is plain and that affects substantial rights because there is a reasonable probability that the sentence would have been different absent the alleged error. *See United States v. Dallman,*533 F.3d 755, 761-62 (9th Cir.2008). Because the district court explained its reasons for the downward variance and sentence and there is no indication that the district court did not understand its authority to vary from the Guidelines range based on *Kimbrough,*we hold that there is not plain error affecting substantial rights. *See Dallman,*533 F.3d at 761-62; *cf. United States v. Henderson,*649 F.3d 955, 958, 964 (9th Cir.2011) (remanding to the district court because the district court made comments suggesting that it believed that it did not have the discretion under *Kimbrough*to reject the child pornography Guidelines).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 23

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-19491) pertaining to the Prime Retail, Inc. Stock Incentive Plans of
our report dated March 13,  2002,  with  respect to the  consolidated  financial
statements  and schedule of Prime  Retail,  Inc.  included in this Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.

Our audits also included the financial  statement schedule of Prime Retail, Inc.
listed in item 14(a).  This  schedule  is the  responsibility  of the  Company's
management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In
our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered
in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,  presents fairly
in all material respects the information set forth therein.



                                    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Baltimore, Maryland
March 29, 2002
#### In re Gabriel NEAL, a/k/a Doty, a/k/a Rodney, a/k/a Rondey, Petitioner.

No. 13-2515.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 28, 2014.

Decided: April 17, 2014.

Gabriel Neal, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gabriel Neal petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of Respondent on January 16, 2014. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Neal’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
Exhibit 10.A(12) 2005 Director Stock Award Plan


    PATRIOT
      NATIONAL BANCORP, INC.

    2005
      DIRECTOR STOCK COMPENSATION AND OWNERSHIP POLICY

    (adopted
      February 16, 2005)

    


    The
      Board
      of Directors believes it is important to align the interests of its Directors
      with the interests of its shareholders and, to that end, adopt this Stock
      Compensation and Ownership Policy. The stock compensation described below is
      meant to supplement cash compensation to the Directors as determined by the
      Board of Directors from time to time.

    


    Outside
      directors will receive $ 5,000 in Patriot National Bancorp, Inc. stock annually
      as of the date of the annual meeting of shareholders, prorated for service
      of
      less than one year. The number of shares will be determined by dividing $5,000
      by the last reported sales price on the date preceeding the date of  the
      annual meeting, or such other date as may closely follow the end of any trading
      "blackout" period that coincides with the date preceeding the date of the annual
      meeting. 

    


    New
      directors are required to purchase at least $ 10,000 in common stock of Patriot
      National Bancorp, Inc. within the first 12 months of service.
#### Marlenis SMART, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, a political subdivision, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 13-11452.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 28, 2014.

Beresford A. Landers, Jr., Law Offices of Beresford A. Landers, Jr., PLLC, North Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Donald Mark Papy, Robert F. Rosen-wald, Office of the City Attorney, Miami Beach, FL, Brian Koji, Allen Norton & Blue, P.A., Tampa, FL, Susan Potter Norton, Brigid Ann Patrick, Allen Norton & Blue, P.A., Coral Gables, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and TREADWELL,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable Marc X. Treadwell, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Georgia, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

We have heard oral argument, and have carefully reviewed the briefs and relevant parts of the record. We conclude that the judgment of the district court granting the City’s motion for judgment as a matter of law should be affirmed. For the reasons articulated by the district court in Part A.1 and 2 of its Omnibus Order Regarding Defendant’s Post-Trial Motions (Docket 218 at pages 7-16), supplemented by the reasons fully discussed at oral argument,1 we conclude that the evidence at trial was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of plaintiffs employment.

Accordingly, the judgment for the City, entered by the district court notwithstanding the verdict, is

AFFIRMED.2

1

. For example, at oral argument, it was noted that the district court may have erred in suggesting that the number of gender-based remarks were only three or four. Nevertheless, there were very few, and fewer still that were egregious (e.g., the single "bimbo” and the two "cunt” remarks which we note gave rise to a prompt reprimand.) We agree with the district court that the incidents were far short of severe or pervasive.

2

. Our disposition makes it unnecessary to rule upon the other issues raised in the briefs of the parties.
#### Laura DURGARYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-72724.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 8, 2014.*

Filed April 14, 2014.

Sassoun Nalbandian, Law Offices of Sas-soun A. Nalbandian, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.

Sharon Michele Clay, Esquire, Trial, Oil, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: FERNANDEZ, N.R. SMITH, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Laura Durgaryan petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Review for substantial evidence, *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), we deny the petition for review.

Even if we were to assume Durgaryan suffered from past persecution based on any one or all three incidents, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the incidents were not committed by the Armenian government or by forces that it was unable or unwilling to control. *See Doe v. Holder,*736 F.3d 871, 878 (9th Cir.2013).

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Durgaryan does not have a well-founded fear of future persecution based on her Pentecostal religion. Durgaryan failed to present objective evidence that Pentecostals in Armenia face persecution on account of their religion. *See Molina-Estrada v. INS,*293 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th Cir.2002) (“[T]he IJ and the BIA are entitled to rely on all relevant evidence in the record, including a State Department report, in considering whether the petitioner has demonstrated that there is good reason to fear future persecution.”).

Because Durgaryan failed to establish eligibility for asylum, her claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See *Zehatye,*453 F.3d at 1190.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Durgaryan failed to establish that she more likely than not will be tortured if she returns to Armenia. See *Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey,*542 F.3d 738, 747-48 (9th Cir.2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### OKLAHOMA NATURAL GAS CORPORATION v. DUFFEY.

No. 24536.

Nov. 20, 1934.

Allen, Underwood *&*Canterbury and, Paul Pinson, for plaintiff in- error.

A. M. Widdows, for defendant in error.

OSBORN, J.

An examination of the record discloses that the issues of law and fact in the above styled and numbered cause are identical with those in cause No. 23205, Oklahoma Natural Gas Corporation v. Joe Douglas (this day decided), 170 Okla. 284, 39 P. (2d) 578.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

RILEY. C. J., CULLISON, Y. C. J., and SWINDALL, McNEILL, BAYLESS, and WELCH, JJ., concur. ANDREWS and BUSBY, JJ., absent.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 5 (Monday, January 8, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 1368]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-405]


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

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD


Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) has submitted 
the following proposal(s) for the collection of information to the 
Office of Management and Budget for review and approval.

Summary of Proposal(s)

    (1) Collection title: Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act 
Applications.
    (2) Form(s) submitted: SI-1a, SI-1b, SI-3, SI-7, SI-8, ID-7H, ID-
11A, ID-11B.
    (3) OMB Number: 3220-0039.
    (4) Expiration date of current OMB clearance: 4/30/2001.
    (5) Type of request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    (6) Respondents: Individuals or Households, Business or other for-
profit.
    (7) Estimated annual number of respondents: 55,400.
    (8) Total annual responses: 271,900.
    (9) Total annual reporting hours: 27,971.
    (10) Collection description: Under Section 2 of the Railroad 
Unemployment Insurance Act, unemployment and sickness benefits are 
provided for qualified railroad employees. The collection obtains 
information needed to determine eligibility for an amount of such 
benefits from railroad employees and physicians. Also collects 
information from individuals acting on behalf of sick or injured 
employees and supplemental information from railroad employers 
regarding settlement of injuries or accidents for which sickness 
benefits were paid.

Additional Information or Comments

    Copies of the forms and supporting documents can be obtained from 
Chuck Mierzwa, the agency clearance officer (312-751-3363). Comments 
regarding the information collection should be addressed to Ronald J. 
Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, 
Illinois, 60611-2092 and the OMB reviewer, Joe Lackey (202-395-7316), 
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10230, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.

Chuck Mierzwa,
Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-405 Filed 1-5-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7905-01-M
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 Annual Report of Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P. (the ‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Jennifer Magro, Chief Financial Officer and Director of Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Partnership.

/s/ Jennifer Magro

|
|
|
|

Jennifer Magro
Citigroup Managed Futures LLC
Chief Financial Officer and Director

March 31, 2008

|
|
|
|

Date

---