alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32

              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 Oak Ridge Micro-Energy, Inc. (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Quarterly Report"), I, Mark Meriwether, CEO, President, Secretary/Treasurer
and director of the Registrant, 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Registrant.

Dated: 5/18/2006                         /s/Mark Meriwether
                                         -------------------------
                                         President
                                         CEO
                                         Secretary
                                         Treasurer
                                         Director
#### In re: William Alfred PRESCOD, Jr., Petitioner.

No. 10-1904.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 16, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 22, 2010.

William Alfred Prescod, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Alfred Prescod, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his pending motions. 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 denied Prescod’s motions on October 18, 2010, 2010 WL 4103762. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Prescod’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We also deny Prescod’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*TERRELL STATON

*Glenn W. Falk,*special public defender, in support of the petition.

*Michele C. Lukban,*senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided June 9, 2010

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 120 Conn. App. 497 (AC 29607), is denied.
# Research Articles

- U.S. Economic, Housing and Mortgage Market Outlook – March 2024 While the U.S. economy remains robust, inflation pressure continues, which could keep mortgage rates higher for longer. Read More
- U.S. Economic, Housing and Mortgage Market Outlook – February 2024 The housing market continues to feel the impact of higher mortgage rates with home sales at multi-decade lows and starts declining over 2023. Robust demand and a lack of supply have led to a reacceleration in house prices. Read More
- Economic, Housing and Mortgage Market Outlook – January 2024 While the economy continues to expand and added 2.7 million jobs in 2023, signs point to a normalization in the labor market as job growth is expected to moderate in 2024. Read More
- Economic, Housing and Mortgage Market Outlook – December 2023 Bolstered by resilient consumer spending and investment, the U.S. economy expanded in 2023, defying expectations of a recession. Read More
- Economic, Housing and Mortgage Market Outlook – November 2023 Economic growth remained strong in Q3, primarily due to solid consumer spending. We expect the economy to slow down as the full impact of higher interest rates is felt.  Read More
- Economic, Housing and Mortgage Market Outlook – October 2023 The U.S. economy continues to grow at a pace closer to long-term trend as the labor market and consumer spending remain strong.  Read More
- Economic, Housing and Mortgage Market Outlook – September 2023 While overall economic growth has been resilient, the labor market shows signs of cooling off, with job openings down and job growth softening. The labor market slowdown may help reduce inflationary pressures.  Read More
- Economic, Housing and Mortgage Market Outlook – August 2023 U.S. economic growth remains on firm ground, with strong consumption spending and a tight labor market. Although housing market activity has slowed, a demand-supply imbalance is causing a rebound in home prices.  Read More
- Temporary Mortgage Rate Buydown Activity Spiked in Late 2022, Now Becoming Less Common In the second-half of 2022, temporary mortgage rate buydowns increased in popularity. However, several factors explain why temporary rate buydowns remain a niche market. Read More
- Economic, Housing and Mortgage Market Outlook – July 2023 The U.S. economy grew at its long-run average rate of 2% during the first quarter of 2023 and the labor market remains strong with an unemployment rate below 4%. The housing market has been impacted by high rates with millions of U.S. homeowners locked into previously low mortgage rates and content to remain in their current homes, helping to keep inventory low. Read More
V

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2411

For the relief of Leteane Clement Monatsi.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 14, 1993

Mr. MORAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Leteane Clement Monatsi.

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

3 SECTION 1. IMMEDIATE RELATIVE STATUS FOR LETEANE

4 CLEMENT MONATSI.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Leteane Clement Monatsi shall be

6 classified as a child under section 101(b)(1)(E) of the Im7 migration and Nationality Act for purposes of approval

8 of a relative visa petition filed under section 204 of such

9 Act by his adoptive parent and the filing of an application

10 for an immigrant visa or adjustment of status.

11 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Leteane Clement

12 Monatsi enters the United States before the filing deadline
2

•HR 2411 IH

1 specified in subsection (c), he shall be considered to have

2 entered and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligi3 ble, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245

4 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of

5 the enactment of this Act.

6 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

7 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the pe8 tition and the application for issuance of an immigrant

9 visa or the application for adjustment of status are filed

10 with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the

11 enactment of this Act.

12 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—

13 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res14 idence to Leteane Clement Monatsi, the Secretary of State

15 shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, for the

16 current or next following fiscal year, the worldwide level

17 of family-sponsored immigrants under section

18 201(c)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

19 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

20 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural

21 parents, brothers, and sisters of Leteane Clement Monatsi

22 shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any

23 right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and

24 Nationality Act.

Æ
#### AMERICAN NAT. BANK OF PAWHUSKA, OKLA., v. HASHBARGER et al.

No. 23685.

Jan. 29, 1935.

Winterringer & Cochrane and Charles E. Wells, for plaintiff in error.

Park Wyatt and Byron Lamun, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, plaintiff below, brought suit against the. defendants to recover upon six promissory notes. The defendants pleaded payment and satisfaction. The case was submitted to a jury upon the evidence and instructions of the trial court. The jury returned a general verdict for the defendants. No exceptions were taken to any of the evidence or to the instructions of the court by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff seeks a reversal of the case for the reason that the verdict is not supported by the evidence and is contrary to the evidence. The plaintiff urges that upon a conflict of the evidence, written evidence is the best evidence and must prevail.

An examination discloses that there was a direct conflict in the evidence, and this court is thoroughly committed to the rule that it will not review the evidence for the purpose of determining the weight thereof, and if there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to sustain the verdict though it be conflicting, and there are no errors in the instructions of the court, the verdict of the jury will not be disturbed.

In the case of Gilbert v. Welchel et al. *455162 Okla. 133, 19 P. (2d) 609, this court held:

> "Where there is any competent evidence Reasonably tending to sustain a verdict, though the evidence be conflicting, and the cause is submitted to the jury upon instructions fairly stating the applicable law, this court will not review the evidence for the purpose of determining the weight thereof, in an effort to substitute its judgment for the judgment rendered on the verdict, and the verdict will not be disturbed on appeal.”

We have examined the entire record in this case and found competent evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury. The question of the weight of the evidence was for the jury, and the jury having determined it, its holding will not be disturbed by this court.

To the same effect is Swindler v. Selby, 130 Okla. 294, 267 P. 471, and numerous other decisions of this court.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

The Supreme Court acknowledges the aid of Attorneys Carl Kruse, Roy J. Elam, and Dan Mitchell in the preparation of this opinion. These attorneys constituted an advisory committee selected by the State Bar, appointed by the Judicial Council, and approved by the Supreme Court. After the analysis of law and facts was prepared by Mr. Kruse and approved by Mr. Elam and Mr. Mitchell, the cause was assigned to a Justice of this court for examination and report to the court. Thereafter, upon consideration by a majority of the court, this opinion was adopted.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2316

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the mailing of certain

mail matter.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 27, 1993

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the

mailing of certain mail matter.

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 ‘‘Graphic Postcard Act

5 of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. NONMAILABILITY OF CERTAIN MAIL MATTER.

7 Section 1463 of title 18, United States Code, is

8 amended—

9 (1) in the first paragraph by inserting ‘‘(a)(1)’’

10 before ‘‘All matter’’;
2

•HR 2316 IH

1 (2) in the second paragraph by inserting ‘‘(2)’’

2 before ‘‘Whoever’’ and by striking ‘‘section’’ and in3 serting ‘‘subsection’’; and

4 (3) by adding at the end the following:

5 ‘‘(b)(1) All matter otherwise mailable by law, upon

6 the envelope or outside cover or wrapper of which, and

7 all postal cards upon which, any delineations, epithets,

8 terms, photographs, drawings, visual depictions, or lan9 guage of a violent or clinically graphic character, or un10 suitable for persons under 18 years of age, are written

11 or printed or otherwise impressed or apparent, are non12 mailable matter, and shall not be conveyed in the mails

13 nor delivered from any post office nor by any letter carrier,

14 and shall be withdrawn from the mails under such regula15 tions as the Postal Service shall prescribe, except as pro16 vided in paragraph (2).

17 ‘‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to

18 any mail matter which is enclosed in an envelope or other

19 outside cover or wrapper which—

20 ‘‘(A) bears on its face, in conspicuous and leg21 ible type in contrast by typography, layout, or color,

22 in accordance with regulations which the Postal

23 Service shall prescribe, such notice as the Postal

24 Service shall by regulation require as to the nature

25 of the contents of the mailing; and
3

•HR 2316 IH

1 ‘‘(B) satisfies such other requirements as the

2 Postal Service may by regulation prescribe in order

3 to carry out the purposes of this subsection.

4 ‘‘(3) Whoever knowingly deposits for mailing or deliv5 ery, anything declared by this subsection to be non6 mailable matter, or knowingly takes the same from the

7 mails for the purpose of circulating or disposing of or aid8 ing in the circulation or disposition of the same, shall be

9 fined not more than $25,000 or imprisoned not more than

10 5 years, or both, for the first such offense, and shall be

11 fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned not more

12 than 10 years, or both, for each such offense thereafter.’’.

Æ
946 A.2d 645

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Brian William HOKE, Jr., Petitioner.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

April 15, 2008.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 15th day of April, 2008, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issue, rephrased for clarity, is:

> Whether the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of 35 P.S. § 780-113(k) apply to a conviction for conspiracy to manufacture a controlled substance.

Justice Todd did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           9,516
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 9,150
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          54,125
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            53,895
<LOANS>                                        137,416
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,035
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 215,473
<DEPOSITS>                                     187,953
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,772
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,932
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,816
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 215,473
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  9,021
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,188
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   253
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                11,462
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,685
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,686
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            6,776
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      180
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,082
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,243
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,243
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,419
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.04
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     6.8
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,533
<LOANS-PAST>                                       435
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,913
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      108
<RECOVERIES>                                        50
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,035
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,035
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 8.1

List of Significant Subsidiaries

The following is a list of the of Companys
significant subsidiaries as at March 1, 2002.

|                                             |  |                 |                  |               |  |  |     |  
|-------------------------------------------- |  | --------------- | ---------------- | ------------- |  |  | --- | -
|                                             |  | State or        |                  | Proportion of
|                                             |  | Jurisdiction of |                  | Ownership    
|Name of Significant Subsidiary               |  | Incorporation   |                  | Interest     
|                                             |  |                 |                  |              
|BONA SHIPHOLDING LTD                         |  |                 | BERMUDA          |               |  |  | 100 | %
|SINGLE SHIP COMPANIES (3)                    |  |                 | AUSTRALIA        |               |  |  | 100 | %
|SINGLE SHIP LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES (47) |  |                 | MARSHALL ISLANDS |               |  |  | 100 | %
|TEEKAY CHARTERING LIMITED                    |  |                 | MARSHALL ISLANDS |               |  |  | 100 | %
|TEEKAY SHIPPING LIMITED                      |  |                 | BAHAMAS          |               |  |  | 100 | %
|UGLAND NORDIC SHIPPING ASA                   |  |                 | NORWAY           |               |  |  | 100 | %
**Exhibit 10.15.6**

 

**Quaker City Bank Change in Control Agreement Renewal and Extension Acknowledgment between Quaker City Bank and Hank H. Kadowaki dated July 1, 2003.**

 

**QUAKER CITY BANK**

**CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT**

**RENEWAL AND EXTENSIONACKNOWLEDGMENT**

 

Name of Participant:    Hank H.Kadowaki 

 

The undersigned participant does hereby acknowledge that, attheir regularly scheduled meeting on June 19, 2003, the Board of Directors of Quaker City Bank acted to renew and extend the Quaker City Bank Change in Control Agreement with the undersigned participant to a full twenty-four (24) month term, untilJune 30, 2005. 

 

Dated this            1st             day of            July            , A.D.,            2003            .
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2486 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2486

  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on octadecyl isocyanate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 22, 1993

 Mr. Ramstad introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on octadecyl isocyanate.

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

SECTION 1. OCTADECYL ISOCYANATE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.30.70 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States is amended by striking ``12/31/92'' and 
inserting ``12/31/95''.
    (b) Effective Date.--
            (1) In general.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
        applies with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
        warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after the 
        date of the enactment of this Act.
            (2) Retroactive application to certain entries.--
        Notwithstanding section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
        U.S.C. 1514) or any other provision of law, upon a request 
        filed with the appropriate customs officer before the date that 
        is 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, any 
        entry, or withdrawal from warehouse for consumption, of any 
        goods described in heading 9902.30.70 of the Harmonized Tariff 
        Schedule of the United States that was made--
                    (A) after December 31, 1992, and
                    (B) before the date that is 15 days after the date 
                of the enactment of this Act,
        shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry or 
        withdrawal occurred on the date that is 15 days after the date 
        of the enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.4

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Thomas
E. OHern, certify that:



|   |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. |  | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Macerich Company for the year ended December 31, 2017; and                                                                                                                                                                  
|   | 
|2. |  | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                                                            
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ THOMAS E. OHERN                                       
|                     |  |  | 
|Date: April 30, 2018 |  |  |  |  |  | Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer