alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                   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

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Core Molding Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
James L. Simonton, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director 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 results of operations
         of the Company.

                                /s/ James L. Simonton
                                -----------------------------------------------
                                James L. Simonton
                                President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
                                August 12, 2005

                                       24
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2943 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2943

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt Indian tribal 
governments and other tribal entities from the employer health coverage 
  mandate during the time the employer health coverage mandate exists.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 23, 2018

  Mr. Daines (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Thune, Mr. Rounds, and Mr. 
Risch) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 
                      to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt Indian tribal 
governments and other tribal entities from the employer health coverage 
  mandate during the time the employer health coverage mandate exists.

    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 ``Tribal Employment and Jobs 
Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF INDIAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS FROM EMPLOYER MANDATE.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 4980H(c) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
                    ``(G) Certain indian employers.--The term 
                `applicable large employer' does not include--
                            ``(i) any Indian tribal government (as 
                        defined in section 7701(a)(40)), a subdivision 
                        of an Indian tribal government (determined in 
                        accordance with section 7871(d)), or an agency 
                        or instrumentality of an Indian tribal 
                        government or subdivision thereof,
                            ``(ii) any tribal organization (as defined 
                        in section 4(l) of the Indian Self-
                        Determination and Education Assistance Act),
                            ``(iii) any corporation if more than 50 
                        percent (determined by vote and value) of the 
                        outstanding stock of such corporation is owned, 
                        directly or indirectly, by any entity described 
                        in clause (i) or (ii), or
                            ``(iv) any partnership if more than 50 
                        percent of the value of the capital and profits 
                        interests of such partnership are owned, 
                        directly or indirectly, by any entity described 
                        in clause (i) or (ii).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to calendar years beginning after December 31, 2014.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.22


 


Kona Gold- Ryan Dodd Agreement


 


This Agreement is made and entered into
as of May 1, 2019 by and between Kona Gold and Ryan Dodd (Skier), a professional Athlete


 


AGREEMENT


 


For the purpose of promoting the Kona Gold
brand of products, and in consideration of the mutual promises herein contained, Kona Gold and Skier agree as follows.


 


Term of Agreement


 


Agreement shall be commencing May 1, 2019,
for a term of two years until May 1, 2021.


 


Services of Skier


 


2.1 Skier agrees that Kona Gold shall have
the right to the use of his name and reputation in connection with, without limitation, any advertising, promotion or distribution
of the products.


 


2.2 Skier agrees to appear at any promotional
or other function required by Kona Gold, at no expense to Skier for a maximum of 3 days per year. Kona Gold will agree to provide
Skier with (60) days written notice of such function, and shall pay for Skier’s transportation to and from the function,
and for Skier’s lodging while at or traveling to and from the function.


 


2.3 In addition to the above, Skier further
agrees that he will, to the best of his ability, and at all times, promote and advertise the Products and Services approved by
Kona Gold exclusively at, without limitation, any and all waterskiing or other water sports events, tournaments, competitions,
water ski schools and clinics, and special promotions. Skier will have on hand Kona Gold drink for people to sample as Clinics,
and at Ski School.


 


2.4 Skier agrees to provide Kona Gold with
Skier Instagram, Facebook and other social network addresses in order to incorporate Skier feeds on Kona Gold website or Marketing
Materials.


 


2.5 Skier agrees to do 2 Social Media Posts
Per month, Kona Gold Specific. Strategy can be discussed with Kona Gold Marketing Team.


 


2.6 Skier agrees to have Kona Gold Logo
placement on Website and on Skis and Helmet. Helmet and Tails of Skis will be wrapped in Kona Gold pattern with Logo. Skier will
do his best to represent Kona Gold on the podium with Logo placement at all events. The Headgear (Helmet) will be exclusive to
Kona Gold, and have no other Logos.


 


Services of Kona Gold


 


3.1 During the term of this Agreement,
Kona Gold agrees to provide Skier with an adequate product amount. In addition Kona Gold will work with Skier to create Video and
Imagery content for use of both parties.


- 2 Cases per month Product for athletes
use and for marketing purposes, and social media promotions


- 2 Short Promo Videos for Instagram, or
Facebook that Include Kona Gold


- Kona Gold shirts and hats and towels
for personal use


 


		3.2	Kona Gold will compensate Skier as follows, $1350.00 Per
month to be paid out monthly.



		3.3	Bonus of $5000.00 for finishing season ranked #1 in the
World.



		3.4	Signing Bonus of 262,500 shares of Kona Gold Solutions,
Inc. Common Stock



 


	/s/ Robert Clark	04/22/2019
	Kona Gold Products	Date
	 	 
	/s/ Ryan Dodd	04/18/2019
	Ryan Dodd	Date
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roland Jevon HOPKINS, a/k/a Meatball, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-6438.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 18, 2011.

Decided: Jan. 26, 2011.

Roland Jevon Hopkins, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Roland Jevon Hopkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hopkins 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.*
#### Michelle Cashion, Respondent, v Alexander T. Bajorek et al., Appellants.

[6 NYS3d 341]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Catherine R. Nugent Panepinto, J.), entered October 29, 2013 in a personal injury action. The order denied the motion of defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she allegedly sustained when she slipped and fell from outdoor steps at the home she rented from defendants. Supreme Court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We affirm.

Contrary to defendants’ contentions, we conclude that there are several triable issues of fact precluding summary judgment. First, there is an issue of fact whether they maintained the premises at issue in a reasonably safe condition *(see generally Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). We note that the allegedly open and obvious condition of the steps does not absolve defendants of their duty to keep the stairs in a safe condition but, instead, bears only on plaintiffs comparative fault *(see Landahl v City of Buffalo,*103 AD3d 1129, 1131 [2013]; *Verel v Ferguson Elec. Constr. Co., Inc,*41 AD3d 1154, 1156 [2007]). Second, there is an issue of fact whether any breach of that duty “was a substantial cause of the events which produced the injury” *(Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp.,*51 NY2d 308, 314-315 [1980], *rearg denied 52*NY2d 784 [1980]; *see Hahn v Tops Mkts., LLC,*94 AD3d 1546, 1548 [2012]; *Prystajko v Western N.Y. Pub. Broadcasting Assn.,*57 AD3d 1401, 1403 [2008]). Finally, there are issues of fact *1355whether defendants created the allegedly dangerous condition *(cf. Navetta v Onondaga Galleries LLC,*106 AD3d 1468, 1469 [2013]; *see generally Ohanessian v Chase Manhattan Realty Leasing Corp.,*193 AD2d 567, 567 [1993]), and whether defendants had constructive notice of that condition *(see generally Zuckerman,*49 NY2d at 562; *Wilson v 100 Carlson Park, LLC,*113 AD3d 1118, 1119 [2014]).

Present — Peradotto, J.P., Carni, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1

             STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
             SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      The undersigned, Santo P. Pasqualucci, is the President and Chief
Executive Officer of Falmouth Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company").

      This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by
the Company of the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
quarter ended March 31, 2004 (the "Report").


      By execution of this statement, I certify that:

            A)    the Report fully complies with the requirements of
                  Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
                  1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and

            B)    the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
                  in all material respects, the financial condition and
                  results of operations of the Company as of the dates and
                  for the periods covered by the Report.

      This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the
Report so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the
Report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It
is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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


Date:  May 17, 2004                    /s/ Santo P. Pasqualucci
                                       --------------------------------------
                                       Santo P. Pasqualucci
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 35.2

                    SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)

                               GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC

                RALI SERIES 2007-QH4 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of GMAC Mortgage,  LLC, as servicer
(the "Servicer")  pursuant to the applicable  servicing  agreement,  does hereby
certify that:

1. A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during  the  period  covered  by the
Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer's performance under the
applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing agreement in all material
respects  throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 24th
day of March 2008.


By:   /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title: Executive Vice President
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o
. 1 0

- 2 0 2 7 0 S u m m a r y C a l e n d a r

N O R B E R T O R O B L E S ,
P e t i t i o n e r
- A p p e l l a n t

v
.
J O E D

. D R I V E R , W a r d e n , H o u s t o n F e d e r a l D e t e n t i o n C e n t e r ,
R e s p o n d e n t

- A p p e l l e e

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o
. 4 : 1 0

- C V

- 6 9 4

B e f o r e R E A V L E Y , D E N N I S , a n d C L E M E N T , C i r c u i t J u d g e s
. P E R C U R I A M : *
N o r b e r t o R o b l e s , f e d e r a l p r i s o n e r # 8 2 7 2 4

- 1 7 9 , a p p e a l s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s d i s m i s s a l o f h i s 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 2 2 4 1 p e t i t i o n
. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t R o b l e s ’ § 2 2 4 1 p e t i t i o n w a s p r e m a t u r e b e c a u s e h i s c l a i m s w e r e d i r e c t e d t o h i s

c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g , w h i c h w a s a c t i v e
. W e n o t e t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a p p e a r s
t o h a v e t r e a t e d R o b l e s ’ p l e a d i n g a s a r i s i n g u n d e r § 2 2 4 1 , n o t § 2 2 5 5

. S e e C a s t r o

v
. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 5 4 0 U

. S

. 3 7 5 , 3 8 3 ( 2 0 0 3 )

. R o b l e s ’ b r i e f i s e n t i r e l y d e v o t e d t o t h e

m e r i t s o f h i s c l a i m s f o r r e l i e f

. A l t h o u g h h e a s s e r t s t h a t h e p r o p e r l y s o u g h t U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Octob er 29 , 20 10 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-20270 Document: 00511278745 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/29/2010N o
. 1 0

- 2 0 2 7 0

h a b e a s r e l i e f p u r s u a n t t o § 2 2 4 1 b e c a u s e h e f i l e d h i s p e t i t i o n p r i o r t o b e i n g

s e n t e n c e d , R o b l e s p r o v i d e s n o e x p l a n a t i o n f o r h i s c o n c l u s o r y a s s e r t i o n
. B y f a i l i n g t o a d d r e s s t h e b a s i s f o r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s d i s m i s s a l , R o b l e s h a s

a b a n d o n e d t h e t h r e s h o l d i s s u e i n t h i s a p p e a l

. Y o h e y v
. C o l l i n s , 9 8 5 F

. 2 d 2 2 2 , 2 2 4

- 2 5 ( 5 t h C i r
. 1 9 9 3 ) ; B r i n k m a n n v
. D a l l a s C o u n t y D e p u t y S h e r i f

f A b n e r , 8 1 3 F

. 2 d 7 4 4 , 7 4 8 ( 5 t h C i r
. 1 9 8 7 )

. A F F I R M E D

.

2 Case: 10-20270 Document: 00511278745 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/29/2010
#### BANK OF LAWRENCEVILLE *v.*JONES.

An action for money alleged to have been paid hy the plaintiff upon the defendant’s order, and for the latter’s use, is not sustained hy evidence showing that no such order was ever given or paid.

Submitted June 20,

Decided July 20, 1901.

Complaint on account. Before Judge Winn. City court of ■Gwinnett. September 25, 1900.

*T. M. Peeples*and *G. PL. Brand,*for plaintiff in error.

*N. L. Hutchins Jr.,*contra.

Lumpkin, P. J.

An ordinary action upon an open account was brought by D. O. Jones against the Bank of Lawreñceville. The copy of the account attached to the plaintiff’s petition was as follows:

> “1899, Aug. 17. Bank of Lawreñceville, Dr. To D. O. Jones.

> “To balance due on Int. Rev. Stamps paid by D. C. Jones, as per order of Bank, June 27, 1898.............$20.00

> “ Interest to date........................................1.44

> $21.44.”

*1028The defendant answered, denying indebtedness to the plaintiff.. It appeared at the trial that the bank addressed to H. A. Rucker,. United States collector of internal revenue at Atlanta, Ga., a written order for revenue stamps of certain denominations therein designated. Accompanying this order was cash to the amount of $Í01.08. The evidence in behalf of the plaintiff showed that he-was a clerk id the collector’s office, and that in pursuance of his. duties as such clerk he undertook to fill the order and transmit *the*stamps to the bank. The testimony introduced by him also tended to show that the order really covered stamps to the value of $121.08;. that he by mistake forwarded to the bank stamps amounting in value to the sum last mentioned, and that he was subsequently required by the government to pay the shortage of $20. The evidence* in behalf of the defendant tended to show that it actually received, only $101.08 worth of stamps. There was a verdict for the plaintiff ; a motion for a new trial was made by the bank, which was* overruled, and it excepted. The sole question presented for our decision is whether or not the evidence, taken most favorably for the plaintiff, warranted the verdict. We are clearly of the opinion that it did not. The action was predicated upon the theory that-the bank, being indebted to the government a balance of $20 for stamps sold and delivered to it, ordered or requested Jones to pay this-balance; that he accordingly did so, and that the bank thus became indebted to him for money laid out and expended for its use and by its direction. His proof affirmatively showed that no such order was ever given or payment made, but that he improvidently sent to the bank stamps belonging to the United States government-which had not been paid for, and that it held him, in his capacity as a mere servant of its internal revenue collector, accountable for the consequences of his mistake. It is obvious, therefore, that there-was a fatal variance between the allegata and the probata; and it-follows that the trial judge erred in not setting the verdict aside.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concurring.*
### 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 JUSTI CE R OSE, 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

appell ant is indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.