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



Exhibit 32(a)
 CORE MOLDING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ James L. Simonton

James L. SimontonPresident, Chief Executive Officer and DirectorDate: November 14, 2006
 28
Motion Denied and Order filed January 31, 2023.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00514-CV

____________

MOSAIC BAYBROOK ONE LP, MOSAIC BAYBROOK TWO, LP; 

MOSAIC BAYBROOK ONE GP LLC; MOSAIC BAYBROOK TWO 

GP LLC; MOSAIC RESIDENTIAL, INC.; ROBERT M. WEBER; 

VALISSA PARMER; ABID BHIMANI; MOSAIC GP FUND III LLC; 

EASTHAM CAPITAL FUND III (QP) LP; EASTHAM CAPITAL 

FUND IV, LP; AUSPAY-BAYBROOK, LLC; AUSPAY-MOSAIC GP, 

LLC; WILLIAMSBURG ENTERPRISES, LLLP; PHILIP SALEM; 

WIDAD SALEM; AND BAYBROOK LL, LLC, Appellants

V.

TAMMY CESSOR AND PAUL SIMIEN, Appellees

On Appeal from the 269th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2019-10104

ORDER

Appellants’ motion for en banc reconsideration of the panel opinion in 

appeal No. 14-19-00514-CV is denied.

PER CURIAM

En Banc Court consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Wise, Jewell, 

Bourliot, Zimmerer, Hassan, Poissant, and Wilson (Spain, J., not participating).
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERCertification 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 Monterey Gourmet Foods, Inc.
(the Registrant) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008
(the Report), I, Scott Wheeler, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, do
hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

(1)          The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

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

|                      |                                           
|--------------------- | ------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 24, 2009 | /s/ SCOTT S.
 WHEELER                     
|                      |                                           
|                      | Scott S.
 Wheeler
 Chief Financial Officer

---
2009-1312.

#### State v. Jones.

Franklin App. No. 09AP-550.
**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**








This
      certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB
      (the “Form 10-QSB”) for the period ended March 31, 2007 of Chase Packaging
      Corporation (the “Company”). I, Ann W. Green Secretary/Treasurer (Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer), certify that, to the best of my
      knowledge:





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





(2)  The
      information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.














/s/
      Ann W. Green


Ann
      W.
      Green


Secretary/Treasurer
      (Principal Financial


and
      Accounting Officer)





May
      15,
      2007
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7067

In Re: JOHNNIE LEE JUSTICE,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(1:06-cv-00067-LMB-lo)

Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: September 8, 2006

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnnie Lee Justice, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Johnnie Lee Justice petitions for a writ of mandamus

seeking an order requiring the district court to grant his motion

for a certificate of appealability. We conclude that Justice is

not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has

a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a

drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary

circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394,

402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).

Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re United

Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). 

The relief sought by Justice is not available by way of

mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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
V

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2793

For the relief of Kris Murty.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 28, 1993

Mr. COLEMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Kris Murty.

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

3 SECTION 1. RELOCATION EXPENSES FOR KRIS MURTY.

4 For the purpose of receiving reimbursement for relo5 cation expenses under sections 5724 and 5724a of title

6 5, United States Code, Kris Murty of El Paso, Texas, an

7 employee of the Department of the Army, is deemed to

8 have been an employee transferred by the Department of

9 the Army from one official station to another for perma10 nent duty when he relocated from Houston, Texas, to Fort

11 Bliss, Texas, in February 1985.
2

•HR 2793 IH

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON AGENTS AND ATTORNEYS FEES.

2 No amount exceeding 10 percent of a payment made

3 pursuant to section 1 may be paid to or received by any

4 agent or attorney in consideration for services rendered

5 in connection with the payment. Any person who violates

6 the provisions of this section shall be guilty of an infrac7 tion and shall be subject to a fine in the amount provided

8 under title 18, United States Code.

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leroy Maurice DEVEAUX, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-7715.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 5, 2007.

Decided: March 27, 2007.

Leroy Maurice Deveaux, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth Witherspoon, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

*330Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Leroy Maurice Deveaux seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. Deveaux also seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e). The orders are not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); *Reid v. Angelone,*369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). A certificate of appealability -will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Deveaux has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Deveaux’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. *United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 (2000). Deveaux’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
FDIC

 MULTIFAMILY AFFORDABLE HOUSING
 

COMPLIANCE REPORT (continued)
 

FDIC
 

HOMEBUYER INCOME CERTIFICATION
 

Instructions 

GENERAL.	 This form is to be completed by LI or VLI buyers of individual AHP condominium units 

or single family properties controlled by a bulk sale LURA. 

PART I. SUMMARY OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME DATA 

Item 1. Name List the names of all household members who will 

be occupying this unit. 

Item 2. Household Size Identify the total number of persons occupying the 

unit. 

Item 3. Household Income Check the appropriate income category: Very 

Low-Income (VLI) or Lower Income (LI). 

A. Assets: As prescribed in the Compliance Manual, verify 

and list the assets owned by this household. 

Indicate who owns the asset by listing the 

corresponding family member letter used in 

Item #1. Describe the asset; indicate the current 

market value; and estimate the income from the 

asset. Do not include as an asset the value of the 

unit being purchased. 

If the number of assets exceed the lines available, 

use additional sheets. Reference the additional 

sheets and include the totals for Cash Value and 

Income from Assets from these sheets as a single 

line. 

Item 4. Total Net Family Assets	 Enter the total cash value of all of the assets in this 

column. 

Item 5.	 Total Actual Asset Provide the total actual income anticipated from 

Income the assets listed. 

Item 6. Imputed Income From If the total in item 4 exceeds $5,000, multiply line 4 

Assets by the HUD approved passbook savings rate. To 

obtain up-to-date information on the passbook rate 

in use contact the monitoring agency. 

K-1
 
 

 FDIC

 MULTIFAMILY AFFORDABLE HOUSING
 

COMPLIANCE REPORT (continued)
 

B. Anticipated Annual Income 

Item 7. Total income, a - e 

Item 8. Annual income 

PART II HOMEBUYER CERTIFICATION 

As prescribed in the Compliance Manual, verify 

and list the gross amount of income anticipated by 

this household. Indicate who will be receiving this 

income by listing the corresponding family member 

letter used in Item #1 and indicate the gross 

amount in the appropriate column. 

If the number of household members with income 

exceeds the lines available, use additional sheets.

 Reference the additional sheets and include the 

totals for each type of income on the open line. 

Line 7, a - e, enter total income by source, 

including assets. 

This is the total annual income of this household. 

Compare to the applicable AHDP income limit to 

determine eligibility. 

The adult family members must sign Part II certifying the accuracy and completeness of the 

information provided on Part I of this form. 

PART III OWNER/AGENT CERTIFICATION 

Check the appropriate income designation: Very Low-Income (VLI) or Lower Income (LI). 

Agents must sign and date the certification. 

PART IV ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

Fill in the appropriate information, as needed. 

K-2
FSIS-FOIA Monthly Report

Received between 10/01/2022 and 10/31/2022

Request ID Request Description Requester 

Name

Received 

Date

Action Office: FSIS

2023-FSIS-00001-F A copy of records regarding Americold sites at Mullica Hill, 

New Jersey; Johnson, Arkansas; Fort Dodge, Iowa; and 

Mansfield, Texas, related to Letters of Warning, from 2021 to 

October 3, 2022.

Lang, 

Leonard 

10/03/2022

2023-FSIS-00002-F A copy of records regarding a list of establishments that have 

fully withdrawn from all FSIS federal meat and poultry 

inspection program inspection activities, which identifies the 

end of operation, from January 1, 2000 to September 30, 

2022. 

Wu, Karin 10/11/2022

2023-FSIS-00003-F A coy of records regarding E. Coli outbreak and related 

Investigations pertaining to CDC Identification Number 

2111MNEXH-1.

Sallander, 

Spencer 

10/11/2022

2023-FSIS-00004-F A copy of records regarding ARK Farms related to any 

investigation into illegal animal slaughtering activity, from 

January 1, 2015 to October 12, 2022.

Bucey, 

Christian 

10/13/2022

2023-FSIS-00005-F A copy of records regarding noncompliance reports, food 

safety assessments, and administrative action data, from 

September 1, 2022 to September 30, 2022.

Hogan, Jo 10/13/2022

2023-FSIS-00006-F A copy of records related to recent regulatory waivers for 

FSIS’s “time-limited trial” for New Swine Inspection System 

(“NSIS”) establishments granted to Swift Pork Company, 

Beardstown, Illinois, (Est. #M85B), on August 17, 2022.

Bainbridge, 

Holly 

10/11/2022

2023-FSIS-00007-F A copy of noncompliance reports for Perdue Farms, Lewiston,

North Carolina, from January 1, 2022 to October 12, 2022.

Boyce, 

Terrence

10/12/2022

2023-FSIS-00008-F A copy of inspection reports regarding Creston Valley Meats, 

from 2017 to October 19, 2022.

Sabino, 

Kendra

10/19/2022

2023-FSIS-00009-F A copy of records generated by FSIS pertaining to requester’s 

email on October 7, 2022 regarding Clemens Food Group, 

Coldwater, Michigan., as well as any internal correspondence 

concerning this establishment, from October 7, 2022 to 

October 27, 2022.

Deffinger, 

Sarah 

10/26/2022

2023-FSIS-00010-F A copy of records regarding the postage equipment lease for 

the mailing equipment used at FSIS offices in Minnesota.

Oliver, 

Helen

10/27/2022

Total No of Requests for 'FSIS': 10
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 Lottery & Wagering Solutions Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Dallas R. Dempster, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

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

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


                                                    /s/ Dallas R. Dempster
                                                    ------------------------
                                                    Dallas R. Dempster
                                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                                    March 24, 2005
#### Douglas EDWARDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James HARDY, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 06-8003.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 22, 2007.

Decided: March 29, 2007.

Douglas Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge III, North Car*300olina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Douglas Edwards seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Edwards has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
Back to Contents

 

**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906****SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Todd Bruce, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Crystallex International Corporation (the “registrant”), certify that:

1. Based on my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2005 (“Form 40-F”), of the registrant fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;

2. Based on my knowledge, the information contained in Form 40-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant for the year ended December 31, 2005.

Date: March 31, 2006

/s/ Todd BruceTodd BrucePresident and Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Crystallex International Corporation and will be retained by such corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marciano Mariano SERVIN-TERRAZAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-41267

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 7, 2007.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Marciano Mariano Servin-Terrazas raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Govern*372ment’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2861 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2861

  To prosecute, as a Federal crime, the assault or intimidation of a 
passenger train crew member to the same extent as such actions against 
                 aircraft crew members are prosecuted.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 16, 2018

  Ms. Duckworth (for herself and Mr. Hoeven) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prosecute, as a Federal crime, the assault or intimidation of a 
passenger train crew member to the same extent as such actions against 
                 aircraft crew members are prosecuted.

    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 ``Passenger Rail Crew Protection 
Parity Act''.

SEC. 2. INTERFERENCE WITH PASSENGER TRAIN CREW MEMBERS.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 281 of title 49, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 28104. Interference with passenger train crew members
    ``(a) Offense.--It shall be unlawful for any person, while on a 
passenger train--
            ``(1) to assault or intimidate a crew member, and thereby 
        interfere with the performance of the duties of a crew member 
        or lessen the ability of a crew member to perform those duties; 
        or
            ``(2) to attempt or conspire to perform an act described in 
        paragraph (1).
    ``(b) Penalties.--A person who violates subsection (a)--
            ``(1) shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not 
        more than 20 years, or both; and
            ``(2) if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or 
        intimidating the crew member, shall be imprisoned for any term 
        of years or for life.
    ``(c) Training.--Each passenger rail carrier is encouraged to 
review training programs of the rail carrier and provide, as necessary, 
additional training in areas such as de-escalating hostile situations, 
written protocols on dealing with hostile situations, and reporting of 
incidents.
    ``(d) Definition of Crew Member.--In this section, the term `crew 
member' includes engineers, conductors, on-board service personnel, and 
similar employees assigned to duty on an in-service passenger train.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 281 of title 49, 
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``28104. Interference with passenger train crew members.''.
                                 <all>
```