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

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with this amended Annual Report of Exmovere Holdings, Inc.  (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David Bychkov, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|   |                                                                                                                                                                                          
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | Such amended Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | The information contained in such amended Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Exmovere Holdings, Inc.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|Date:   April 15, 2009               
|                                     
|/s/David Bychkov                     
|David Bychkov
Chief Executive Officer
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 Spectra Energy Partners, LP on Form 10-K for the period
ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Laura Buss Sayavedra, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Spectra Energy Partners GP, LLC, general partner
of Spectra Energy Partners (DE) GP, LP, general partner of Spectra Energy Partners, LP, 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 results of operations
of Spectra Energy Partners, LP.



|                     |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                      
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 11, 2009 |  | /s/ Laura Buss Sayavedra                                                                                                                                                                             
|                     |  | Laura Buss Sayavedra Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer Spectra Energy Partners GP, LLC General
Partner of Spectra Energy Partners (DE) GP, LP General Partner of Spectra Energy Partners, LP
|                    
|                    
|                    
|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          72,550
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,091
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                21,509
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    311,820
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        649,334
<ALLOWANCE>                                      6,302
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,073,498
<DEPOSITS>                                     888,578
<SHORT-TERM>                                   122,033
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,740
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,391
<OTHER-SE>                                      69,756
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,073,498
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 13,590
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,418
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   352
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                18,360
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               6,148
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,860
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           10,500
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      438
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 137
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,399
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,800
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,083
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,083
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.32
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.58
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,230
<LOANS-PAST>                                        57
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 6,024
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      175
<RECOVERIES>                                        15
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                6,302
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             6,302
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marvin Fitzgerald WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-7627.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 13, 2011.

Decided: Jan. 21, 2011.

Marvin Fitzgerald Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Marvin Fitzgerald Walker appeals the district court’s order denying his motion *671for a certificate of appealability. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Walker,*Nos. 0:02-cr-00684-JFA-1; 0:07-cv-70008-JFA (D.S.C. Sept. 28, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
Document

Exhibit 10.11

Amendment to Employment Agreement
This Amendment to Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”) is made on June 30, 2020 by and between Scientific Games Corporation, a Nevada corporation, (the “Company”) and Patrick J. McHugh (“Executive”).
WHEREAS, the Company and Executive entered into an Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of January 1, 2019, which was then amended on February 26, 2020, and on March 24, 2020 (as amended, the “Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the amendment to the Employment Agreement dated as of March 24, 2020 decreased Executive’s annual base salary of six hundred thousand U.S. dollars ($600,000) by seventy-one thousand, five hundred and six ($71,506), representing a portion of his annual base salary attributable to the period from April 5, 2020 through June 30, 2020.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual benefits to be derived herefrom and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 
1.Decrease in Base Salary.  The Agreement is hereby amended by adding the following sentence to the end of Section 3(a):
“Effective as of July 1, 2020, Executive will be paid twenty-five thousand, four hundred and seventy-nine U.S. dollars ($25,479) of base salary until and through July 31, 2020, and Executive’s annual base salary of six hundred thousand U.S. dollars ($600,000) is reduced by an additional twenty-five thousand, four hundred and seventy-nine U.S. dollars ($25,479), representing the portion of his annual base salary attributable to the period from July 1, 2020 through July 31, 2020.”
2. The Company and Executive further expressly agree that the decrease in base salary set forth in Section 1 of this Amendment does not constitute “Good Reason,” as that phrase is defined in Section 4(e) of the Agreement.
3. Except as set forth in this Amendment, all terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect in accordance with their terms.  All references to the “Agreement” in the Agreement shall refer to the Agreement as amended by this Amendment. Any defined terms used in this Amendment and not defined herein shall have the meaning as set forth in the Agreement.
        4. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original and all of which shall constitute the same instrument.  Delivery of an executed counterpart of a signature page of this Amendment by electronic transmission shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart of this Amendment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has duly executed this Amendment as of June 30, 2020.
SCIENTIFIC GAMES CORPORATION


By:   /s/ James Sottile   
1








Name: James Sottile 
Title: Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer
        
/s/ Patrick J. McHugh   
Patrick J. McHugh
2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-8570

MELVIN ALLEN O'NEAL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MRS. BIRD, Control Officer employed at Dutchman Correctional Institution,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(CA-95-2388-18-AK)

Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 29, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Melvin Allen O'Neal, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. Appellant's case was referred to a

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1988). The

magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based

upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to

object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review

by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 43 (Monday, March 5, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13316-13317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5390]


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

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

Farm Credit Administration Board


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the 
Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), of the forthcoming regular meeting 
of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board).

DATE AND TIME:  The regular meeting of the Board will be held at the 
offices of the Farm Credit Administration in

[[Page 13317]]

McLean, Virginia, on March 8, 2001, from 9:00 a.m. until such time as 
the Board concludes its business.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Mikel Williams, Secretary to the 
Farm Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4025, TDD (703) 883-4444.

ADDRESS: Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, 
Virginia 22102-5090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This meeting of the Board will be open to 
the public (limited space available). In order to increase the 
accessibility to Board meetings, persons requiring assistance should 
make arrangements in advance. The matters to be considered at the 
meeting are:

Open Session

A. Approval of Minutes

    <bullet> February 21, 2001 (Open and Closed)

B. Reports

    <bullet> FCS Building Association's Quarterly Report
    <bullet> Corporate Approvals

C. New Business

1. Regulation

    <bullet> Stock Issuance [12 CFR Parts 611 and 615] (Final)

1. Other

    <bullet> Conversion of Central Oklahoma FLCA
    <bullet> Consolidation of AgCredit of California PCA/FLCA and 
Intermountain PCA/FLCA

    Dated: February 20, 2001.
Kelly Mikel Williams,
Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
[FR Doc. 01-5390 Filed 3-1-01; 11:51 am]
BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
#### In the Matter of Chautauqua County Department of Health and Human Services, on Behalf of Desiree R. Bosley, Appellant, v Tonya R. Bosley, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 12.)

[3 NYS3d 674]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Chautauqua County (Judith S. Claire, J.), entered October 17, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. *1344The order dismissed the objection of the Chautauqua County Department of Health and Human Services and affirmed the order of the Support Magistrate.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs *(see Matter of Chautauqua County Dept. of Health & Human Servs. v Matteson,*126 AD3d 1338 [2015]).

Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra, Lindley and Valentino, JJ.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 11, 2020

NO. 03-19-00445-CR

Christopher Michael Crim, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES BAKER AND KELLY

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the judgments of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in 

the judgments. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgments of conviction. Because 

appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Kelly R. FLOW, Appellant.

No. 06-1820.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 6, 2007.

Filed: April 10, 2007.

Michelle M. Law, Springfield, MO, for appellant.

*474Kimberly R. Weber Dean, Spec. Asst. U.S. Atty., Springfield, MO, for appellee.

Before COLLOTON, HANSEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Kelly R. Flow appeals the 168-month prison sentence the district court1 imposed after she pleaded guilty to a drug conspiracy. In a brief filed under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), her counsel argues that Flow’s sentence is unreasonable because Flow and a codefendant were equally culpable, yet the codefendant received a 100-month prison sentence as a result of the government’s substantial-assistance motion.

We enforce the broad appeal waiver included in Flow’s plea agreement. The plea colloquy reflects that Flow understood and voluntarily accepted the terms of the plea agreement, including the waiver; this appeal falls within the scope of the waiver; and no injustice would result. *See United States v. Andis,*333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.2003) (en banc) (discussing enforceability of appeal waiver); *see also United States v. Estrada-Bohena,*201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in *Anders*case).

Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), for any nonfrivolous issue not covered by the waiver, we find none. Accordingly, we enforce the waiver and dismiss the appeal. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In connection with the Annual Report of United Mines, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/ A for the year ended December 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Glenn E. Martin, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)           Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Dated:   April 16, 2012
/s/ Glenn E. MartinBy:  Glenn E. MartinIts:  President
 
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to United Mines, Inc. and will be retained by United Mines, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF METRO INFORMATION SERVICES, INC. AS PRESENTED IN THE
FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS' LEGEND.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                        JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                2,135
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                         52,156
<ALLOWANCES>                          432
<INVENTORY>                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      55,559
<PP&E>                                16,010
<DEPRECIATION>                        5,150
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        131,652
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 26,627
<BONDS>                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                              149
<OTHER-SE>                            38,032
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          131,652
<SALES>                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      72,473
<CGS>                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         51,502
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      14,062
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    176
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       6,791
<INCOME-TAX>                          2,750
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   4,041
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                          4,041
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                         0.27
        


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Heather Wisby STEWART, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-30270.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 7, 2014.*

Filed April 11, 2014.

Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., USBI— Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, *509Ryan George Weldon, Assistant U.S., USGF—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Robert Henry Branom, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT—Federal Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *509*See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Heather Wisby Stewart appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 15-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Stewart contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary and because the district court placed an undue emphasis on the circumstances of her arrest. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Stewart’s sentence. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The 15-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Stewart’s breach of the court’s trust and the need to deter future criminal conduct. See *id.; United States v. Miqbel,*444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir.2006).

We reject Stewart’s contention that the district court improperly considered a post-arrest statement that was elicited from her in violation of *Miranda v. Arizona,*384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The record reflects that the district court expressly disregarded the statement in fashioning the sentence.

AFFIRMED.

**

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