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


 CERTICATION 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 Tilden Associates, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2006 (the "Report"), I, Robert
Baskind, Chairman, President and 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:

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/ ROBERT BASKIND
--------------------------------------------
Robert Baskind,
Chairman, President, Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer

May 21, 2007





                                       17
cc: Hon. Carolyn Ellsworth, District Judge 

Clark County Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

Steven Dale Farmer 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A e 

2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Federal Bureau of Investigation

In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2), and Title 41, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 101-6.1015, the Director, FBI, with the concurrence of the Attorney General, has determined that the continuance of the Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Advisory Policy Board (APB) is in the public interest, in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the FBI by law, and hereby gives notice of the renewal of its charter, effective January 4, 2001.

The APB recommends to the Director, FBI, general policy with respect to the philosophy, concept, and operational principles of the various criminal justice information systems managed by the FBI's CJIS Division.

                    The APB includes representatives from state and local criminal justice agencies; members of the judicial, prosecutorial, and correctional segments of the criminal justice community; a representative of federal agencies participating in the CJIS systems; and representatives of criminal justice professional associations (i.e., the American Probation and Parole Association American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors, International Association of Chiefs of Police, National District Attorneys Association, National                           ( print page 13784)                        Sheriffs' Association, Major Cities Chiefs Association, Major County Sheriffs' Association, and a representative from a national professional association representing the courts or court administrators nominated by the Conference of Chief Justices). All members of the APB are appointed by the FBI Director.                

The APB functions solely as an advisory body in compliance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The charter has been filed in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

Dated: February 20, 2001.

Louis J. Freeh,

Director.

[FR Doc. 01-5562  Filed 3-6-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-02-M
#### Samuel BROWN v. Thomas F. KEOHANE, Jr.

Civ. A. No. 79-0724-R.

United States District Court, E. D. Virginia, Richmond Division.

Aug. 17, 1979.

Samuel Brown, pro se.

MEMORANDUM

WARRINER, District Judge.

Samuel Brown, an inmate confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in Miami, Florida, brings this *pro se*petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1970). The petitioner seeks the dismissal of an escape charge now pending in the Circuit Court of Prince George County on the ground that the Circuit Court and prosecutors of that County have failed to comply with his request for disposition of the charge within 180 days, as required under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, 53 Va.Code Ann. § 304.1, Article III (1950).

The petitioner states that he filed a request for disposition of the escape charge on 23 June 1977. He claims he received no response whatsoever to this request. He then filed a second motion for disposition with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Prince George County on 9 January 1979 and again received no reply. Finally, he filed a motion to dismiss the charge on 22 February 1979, but he claims the motion has been ignored.

The Interstate Agreement on Detainers, Article V, subsection (c) provides:

> If the appropriate authority shall refuse or fail to accept temporary custody of said person, or in the event that an action on the indictment, information or complaint on the basis of which the detainer has been lodged is not brought to trial within the period provided in Article III or Article IV hereof, the appropriate court of the jurisdiction where the indictment, information or complaint has been pending shall enter an order dismissing the same with prejudice, and any detain-er based thereon shall cease to be of any force or effect.

The petitioner claims that he has moved for dismissal in accordance with this provision *944but that he has not received a ruling from the Circuit Court. Under these circumstances, the petitioner should be required to seek enforcement of the Act in a higher State court before proceeding to federal court. Though there is no order from which to appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court, the petitioner could certainly apply to that Court for habeas review.

Because it finds that the petitioner has available State remedies in regard to his claim, the Court will not consider , his petition at this time. The doctrine of exhaustion which applies in habeas actions requires that the precise claims asserted in federal court be previously litigated at all available levels of the State courts. *Pitchess v. Davis,*421 U.S. 482, 95 S.Ct. 1748, 44 L.Ed.2d 317 (1975); *Picard v. Conner,*404 U.S. 270, 92 S.Ct. 509, 30 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971). This petition will therefore be dismissed. Such dismissal is without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to refile his petition after exhausting his State remedies.

An appropriate order shall issue.
Exhibit 99.2
             Statement Furnished Pursuant to Section 906 of the
             Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

      The undersigned, George E. Young, III, is the Senior Vice President
and Chief Financial 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 December 31, 2002 (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.

Date:  February 3, 2003                /s/ George E. Young, III
       ----------------------------    ------------------------------------
                                       George E. Young, III
                                       Senior Vice President and Chief
                                       Financial Officer
[No. 25250-7-III.

Division Three.

August 7, 2007.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Walter William Copland, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Benton County, No. 05-1-01212-2, Cameron Mitchell, J., entered May 19, 2006. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Sweeney, C.J., concurred in by Schultheis and Brown, JJ.
U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission

100 F Street N.E.

Washington, DC
20549



Re:
Exceed Company Ltd.



Ladies and Gentlemen:



We
have read the statements made by Exceed Company Ltd. as set forth in Item 16F of Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2011.
We are not in a position to agree or disagree with respect to: a) the statement made in the first paragraph regarding the date
on which a new independent registered public accounting firms was appointed, b) the statements made in the 3rd, 6th,
and 8th paragraphs in their entirety, c) the last sentence of the 5th paragraph, and d) the manner in which
the accounting change is described in the first sentence of the 5th paragraph and how it is presented in the Form 20-F,
including the disclosures therein. We are in agreement with the statements contained therein as they relate to our firm, except
that with respect to the date of dismissal referred to in the first paragraph; we believe a final determination was made on April
25, 2012.







/s/ Crowe Horwath
LLP



Sherman Oaks,
California

April 27, 2012
#### S.L., Appellant, v J.R., Respondent.

[5 NYS3d 226]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Capeci, J.), entered October 10, 2013, which, without a hearing, granted the defendant’s motion for sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ two children.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

An award of custody must be based upon the best interests of the child, and neither parent has a prima facie right to custody of the child *(see*Domestic Relations Law § 70; *Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55*NY2d 89, 93 [1982]; *Matter of Zaratzian v Abadir,*105 AD3d 1054 [2013]). Although a custody determination generally may only be made following a full and comprehensive evidentiary hearing *(see Obey v Degling,*37 NY2d 768, 769-770 [1975]; *Matter of Savoca v Bellofatto,*104 AD3d 695, 696 [2013]; *Matter of Peek v Peek,*79 AD3d 753 [2010]; *Matter of Nalty v Kong,*59 AD3d 723 [2009]), no hearing is necessary where, as here, “the court possesses adequate relevant information to enable it to make an informed and provident determination as to the child’s best interest” *(Matter of Hom v Zullo,*6 AD3d 536, 536 [2004]; *see Matter of Lazo v Cherrez,*121 AD3d 1002 [2014]; *Matter of Zaratzian v Abadir,*105 AD3d at 1054; *Matter of Schyberg v Peterson,*105 AD3d 857 [2013]).

Significantly, the parties’ affidavits and the report prepared by the court-appointed forensic evaluator demonstrate that the plaintiff admits the defendant’s allegations regarding her emotionally destructive and sometimes violent behavior toward him and the parties’ two children. Moreover, the forensic evaluator, who interviewed the parties and the subject children, concluded that the defendant was the more stable parent, and that the defendant was able to make sound parenting decisions for the children. Additionally, the attorney for the children supported the award of custody to the defendant.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit.

*683Thus, a sound and substantial basis in the record exists to support the Supreme Court’s determination that it was in the best interests of the subject children to award the defendant sole legal and physical custody *(see Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167, 172-173 [1982]; *Matter of Graziani C.A. [Lisa A.],*117 AD3d 729 [2014]; *Matter of DeViteri v Saldana,*95 AD3d 1221, 1222 [2012]).

Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
#### Nicholas Marabello, an Individual with Disabilities, by His Parent and Natural Guardian, Rozanna Marabello, et al., Appellants, v State of New York, Respondent.

[2 NYS3d 812]

In a claim, inter alia, to recover damages for assault and *768battery, the claimants appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (DeBow, J.), dated March 6, 2013, which, after an in camera inspection, denied their motion to compel disclosure of documents that the defendant withheld on the ground that the documents were privileged under the Education Law.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Since the defendant met its burden of demonstrating that the documents in dispute were privileged quality assurance documents prepared in accordance with Education Law § 6527 (3) and Mental Hygiene Law § 29.29, the Court of Claims properly denied, after an in camera inspection, the claimants’ motion to compel disclosure of those documents *(see Stephen v State of New York,*117 AD3d 821, 822 [2014]; *Szmania v State of New York,*82 AD3d 1688, 1689 [2011]).

The claimants’ remaining contentions are without merit.

Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 23.1
              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent certified public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of our report dated March 12, 1999 (except with
respect to the matters discussed in Notes 17(b) and 17(c), as to which the date
is March 30, 1999), included in this Form 10-KSB into Big Entertainment, Inc.'s
previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-3, file numbers 333-21173,
33-382919, 333-57855 and 333-68209, and on Form S-8, file no. 333-14659. It
should be noted that we have not audited any financial statements of the Company
subsequent to December 31, 1998 or performed any audit procedures subsequent to
the date of our report.

Arthur Andersen LLP
Miami, Florida
  March 31, 1999
#### Aaron A. STEVENSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jamie A. KWIECINSKI; Dwight W. Ayers; Atlas Gaskins, in his official capacity as Chief of Police, Roanoke City Police Department, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-1962.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 10, 2011.

Decided: Feb. 16, 2011.

Aaron A. Stevenson, Appellant Pro Se. Timothy Ross Spencer, City Attorney’s Office, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.

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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Aaron A. Stevenson appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment and denying his motion for summary judgment in his civil rights action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Stevenson v. Kwiecinski,*No. 7:09-cv-00525-gec, 2010 WL 2927964 (W.D.Va. July 23, 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.*
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 43 (Monday, March 5, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 13353]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5272]


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

NORTHEAST DAIRY COMPACT COMMISSION


Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Northeast Dairy Compact Commission.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Compact Commission will hold its regular monthly meeting 
to consider matters relating to administration and enforcement of the 
price regulation, including the reports and recommendations of the 
Commission's standing Committees.

DATES: The meeting will begin at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, March 14, 2001.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn, 700 Elm Street, 
Manchester, NH.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Smith, Executive Director, 
Northeast Dairy Compact Commission, 64 Main Street, Room 21, 
Montpelier, VT 05602. Telephone (802) 229-1941.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7256

    Dated: February 27, 2001.
Daniel Smith,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 01-5272 Filed 3-2-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1650-01-P
#### Julia Mateo AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-74773.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.*

Filed Feb. 26, 2007.

Julia Mateo Aguilar, Huntington Beach, CA, pro se.

District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Aviva L. Poczter, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, TASHIMA and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying petitioner’s motion to reconsider.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s fourth motion to reconsider as numerically barred. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2) (stating numerical limits on motions to reconsider); *Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 895-96 (9th Cir.2003).

Accordingly, respondent’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
### OFFICEOFTHiXA'ITORNRYQENE~OF~ -7 AUSTIN"The court &a.?.1 have mwer to Ii11 vacanafe# fo thk orhm ai8 County J&se, Couuty Clerk, 8herl$f, County Attorney, CountyTmasurcr, County Surkyor, County Hide Inspootor,Assoasor Of Tame, Colleotoc of luas, Justioeso-ct2e Poaoe, Constablecr, and County Su~arintendeatof Publio InfHzuti$ioa. &oh vtoa%oi4s lrhall be filled by.a ahjority vote 'orthe mar&era of aaid’~ourt( present aud rotfng. MU the porsm ohoeea ahallhoia.orrioe until thenext ,rtneral sleetloll."

Article 292T, Revleti 

### Olvli Statutes,1925,proridorr

'No.poraon 

### ehdu:

be l lwble to cay State, oounty, prroindt 05 munloip~l omar in this State unlesd.he shnllbe~ellgibls to hold office
unaer the Censtltutlon or thfe state, and unless ho @hall have rsoideU'l5 this State 

### for the period of twepm aohtb and 8%~ months 5.n the aountp,'



### prooldot, or nunioipalttp, in whbh he uffere himeelf 6~ a dan&iate, next prm5Uing any general or 8peoia.l eliotion, ana shen hare **beat an**  aohal bona fld.eoitlsaa **of e+id**  'county, preotnatg 'err, atuzbi lity ior aor Uaaa sir month& E4 118ible to hold office eha$l evef"h%%name plaoed upon the ballot at any general or apeoial ele~tioa, or at ay primary eleotion,whore oandidates are aolooted under primary election .larsa? ttis State;

### n&a ~110 such tnslfgible~canQidsteshall ever be voted u;1on,nor have votao oountea for,tia, at any such ~eners~. speaial, or .prlzmryelsotion."

It ia to be observed that there is no roqtireamnt in the above etatutory and oonatitutlcnal provisions chat a parsonmust have a poll tax b&ore ha la ~ualifledto aoaej&
the~orfloe of juetioo or the geaoe r$hentend836 hL2. &Irthar, w4 have been unable to ~litul any such reqdreze!G 13 any of the lana of this Stste with regard to tnis particularbXfoe.

3%~ nature ana >wpoee of a poll tay 14 t&atof a neaeeoary prerequleite to the ri@t cf certoln GWJaatea olassee to vote. Unleee otherwiae ?rcvidca,the oftlceof the poll tix is not t+tt of a neoeseary prerequisits to

## 746

-
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 46 (Thursday, March 8, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 13928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5608]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec. 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 
determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all 
bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information 
Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than March 22, 2001.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Phillip Jackson, Applications 
Officer) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. National Bancshares, Inc., Bettendorf, Iowa; to acquire 
FirstCity Mortgage Corp., Bettendorf, Iowa; and thereby engage in 
residential real estate lending, pursuant to Sec.  225.28(b)(1) of 
Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 2, 1001.
Robert deV. Frierson
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 01-5608 Filed 3-7-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S