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

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Omtool, Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert L. Voelk, Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/  Robert L. Voelk    |   |   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| Robert L. Voelk         |   |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |   |   |
| May 15, 2007       |   |   |

 

----
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Natalie Walters, Respondent, and Government Employees Insurance Company, Appellant.

In a proceeding to stay arbitration, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 14, 1976, which denied the application. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Special Term correctly concluded that under the automobile policy issued by petitioner-appellant to claimant-respondent, the latter was entitled to claim first-party benefits arising from out-of-State accidents in view of the specific endorsement in the policy affording that protection, and that the mandatory arbitration provisions of the policy were applicable to all disputes relating to said claim, the clear legislative intent being the submission of all disputes relating to claims for first-party benefits to binding arbitration (see *Matter of Walker [Government Employees Ins. Co.],*54 AD2d 911; *Matter of Green Bus Lines v Bailey,*50 AD2d 924, affg 80 Misc 2d 483). Accordingly, the motion to stay arbitration was properly denied. Cohalan, Acting P. J., Hawkins, Suozzi and Mollen, JJ., concur.
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 98-10092

Summary Calendar

_________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANDREW LEE McCLINTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:97-CR-245-1-P)

October 20, 1998

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Andrew Lee McClinton appeals his conviction on three counts of

affecting interstate commerce by robbery and on three counts of

using a firearm in relation to those robberies, in violation of 18

U.S.C. §§ 924(c), 1951. He contends that the district court erred

when it refused to strike a juror for cause and ended the voir

dire. We find no abuse of discretion because the challenged juror

ultimately expressed that she could decide the case based on the
-2-

law and on the evidence presented. See United States v. Munoz, 15

F.3d 395, 397 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rodriguez, 993 F.2d

1170, 1176 (5th Cir. 1993).

McClinton also argues that the trial court abused its

discretion when it permitted the Government to prove that the

businesses McClinton robbed purchased products manufactured in

other states based on their employees' testimony that product

labels indicated the same. McClinton posits that the fact that a

business has corporate headquarters in another state does not prove

interstate commerce, and the Government relied primarily on product

labels and invoices to prove its case. 

Each of the employees who testified had personal knowledge of

the interstate nature of the businesses gained by their daily work.

See Fed. R. Evid. 602; United States v. Davis, 792 F.2d 1299, 1304-

05 (5th Cir. 1986). They did not rely solely on product labels or

invoices. Therefore, McClinton's argument that this testimony was

hearsay fails. Moreover, the employees’ testimony showed that the

robberies depleted the businesses’ assets and that it was the

regular course of those businesses to buy products from out of

state. This was sufficient to sustain a Hobbs Act conviction.

United States v. Hebert, 131 F.3d 514, 523-24 n.8 (5th Cir. 1997),

cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1571 (1998). The district court’s

admission of testimony about product labels and purchase orders, if

error, was harmless. See Cupit v. Whitley, 28 F.3d 532, 539 (5th

Cir. 1994).

Last, McClinton contends that the trial court was required to
-3-

instruct the jury that the Government had to prove a "substantial"

effect on interstate commerce. This argument is precluded by this

court's decision in Herbert, 131 F.3d at 520-21. 

McClinton's conviction is AFFIRMED.
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.                  

###### Export-Import Bank of the United States

                    This notice is to inform the public that the Export-Import Bank of the United States has received an application to finance the export of approximately $27 million in U.S. equipment, technology and services to a facility in Greece that will fabricate photovoltaic modules. The U.S. exports will enable the Greek facility to fabricate modules that will generate a total of approximately 5 megawatts of electricity per year. Initial production is expected to commence in 2005. Available information indicates that this new production will be consumed primarily in Europe. Interested parties may submit comments on this transaction by e-mail to                     *economic.impact@exim.gov*                     or by mail to 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Room 1238, Washington, DC 20571, within 14 days of the date this notice appears in the                     **Federal Register.**

Helene S. Walsh, 

Director, Policy Oversight and Review. 

[FR Doc. 04-27931 Filed 12-21-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Harry Samuels, Also Known as David Jones, Also Known as James Curtis, Also Known as David Johnson, Appellant.

[716 NYS2d 897]

—Appeals by the defendant from five judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sampson, J.), all rendered July 2, 1997, convicting him of possession of burglars tools under Indictment No. 5895/94, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree under Indictment No. 79/95, robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree under Indictment No. 1700/95, criminal posession of a weapon in the fourth degree under Indictment No. 5205/95, and robbery in the first degree (eight counts) and robbery in the second degree (four counts) under Indictment No. 2000/96, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mangano, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-01T19:15:03-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
#### § 1000.108 How is HUD approval obtained by a recipient for housing for non-low-income families and model activities?

Recipients are required to submit proposals to operate model housing activities as defined in section 202(6) of NAHASDA and to provide assistance to non-low-income families in accordance with section 201(b)(2) of NAHASDA. Assistance to non-low-income families must be in accordance with § 1000.110. Proposals may be submitted in the recipient's IHP or at any time by amendment of the IHP, or by special request to HUD at any time. HUD may approve the remainder of an IHP, notwithstanding disapproval of a model activity or assistance to non-low-income families.

[77 FR 71525, Dec. 3, 2012]
### §290cc–13. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title V, §520, formerly §520A, as added Nov. 18, 1988, Pub. L. 100–690, title II, §2057(3), 102 Stat. 4212, and amended, which related to establishment of grant programs for demonstration projects for drug abuse research, was renumbered section 520A of act July 1, 1944 by Pub. L. 102–321, title I, §116(a), July 10, 1992, 106 Stat. 348, and transferred to section 290bb–32 of this title.
EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Ronald R. Helm, Chief ExecutiveOfficer (Principal Executive Officer) of Pacific Biometrics, Inc., certify that:

1.  This quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a)and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. That the information contained in this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company. 

Date:  February 13, 2003

|   |   | /s/  RONALDHELM               |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                         |
|   |   | **Ronald Helm Chief Executive Officer** |
|   |   |                                    |
Presidential Documents

76371

Federal Register 

Vol. 69, No. 243

Monday, December 20, 2004

Title 3— 

The President 

Proclamation 7855 of December 15, 2004

60th Anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge, 2004

By the President of the United States of America 

A Proclamation

Sixty years ago, more than 600,000 American soldiers fought at the Battle 

of the Bulge in the Ardennes Forest region of Belgium and Luxembourg. 

What began as a German surprise attack on December 16, 1944, became 

the largest land battle involving U.S. troops in World War II and ended 

with an Allied victory on January 25, 1945. By the end of the battle, 

there were 81,000 American casualties, including approximately 19,000 who 

had sacrificed their lives. This formidable stand was a turning point in 

the war and was critical to the defeat of Nazi Germany and the liberation 

of Europe from tyranny. 

Americans continue to be inspired by the valor and integrity of those who 

fought and those who died at the Battle of the Bulge. We recognize these 

brave individuals and pay special tribute to all the veterans of World War 

II. When it mattered most, an entire generation of Americans showed the 

finest qualities of our Nation and humanity. Today, as we wage a war 

on terrorism and defend freedom, our service men and women follow and 

uphold this great tradition of achievement and courage. Just like their parents 

and grandparents, the men and women of this generation of our military 

have answered the call to help advance peace and democracy and keep 

the American people safe. 

On the 60th anniversary of one of the fiercest battles of World War II, 

our Nation honors the veterans who share with us the story of this epic 

struggle and all of the brave Americans who fought in the Battle of the 

Bulge. 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States 

of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution 

and laws of the United States, do hereby urge all Americans to observe 

the 60th Anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge. I call upon all Americans 

to observe this occasion with appropriate activities, ceremonies, and programs 

designed to honor those who served and sacrificed to liberate Europe and 

defend America’s freedom and security. 

76372 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 243 / Monday, December 20, 2004 / Presidential Documents 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifteenth day 

of December, in the year of our Lord two thousand four, and of the IndependBilling code 3195

Filed 12

[FR Doc. 04

–17–

–

04; 9:18 am] 

27944

–01–P 

ence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-ninth.

W
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2011-1095

Directorate Identifier: 2010NM241AD

SBIS 605-24-004 --- 2/17/10

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
Unassociated Document


    AMENDMENT
#1 TO OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT LETTER

     

    


    This
Amendment #1 (“Amendment #1”) to the
Offer of Employment Letter by and between Delta Three Israel, Ltd. (the “Company”) and Arie
Rand (“Executive”), dated as
of September 19, 2010 (the “Offer of Employment
Letter”), is dated October 17, 2010.

     

    Recitals:

     

    WHEREAS,
the Company and Executive entered into the Offer of Employment Letter and now
wish to enter into this Amendment #1 to amend the Offer of Employment Letter as
set forth below;

     

    NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the
foregoing recital and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be
legally bound, hereby agree as follows:

     

    1. The
clause “10,000 USD (with payment in NIS according to the official exchange rate
of the Bank of Israel on the day of payroll processing).” found on page 2 of the
Offer of Employment Letter is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with
the following:

    


    “10,000
USD (with payment in NIS at an exchange rate of 4 NIS for 1 USD).”

     

    2.           Except
as expressly provided in this Amendment #1, all of the terms and conditions of
the Offer of Employment Letter remain unchanged, and the terms and conditions of
the Offer of Employment Letter remain in full force and effect.

     

    IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment #1 as of the
date first set forth above.

     

    
      
        	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	
                 

              	
                By:
      

              	/s/ Effi
      Baruch	 
	 	 	Name:
      Effi Baruch	 
	 	 	Title:   Chief
      Executive Officer and President	 
	 	 	 	 


      

      
        	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	
                 

              	
                By:
      

              	/s/ Arie
      Rand	 
	 	 	Arie
      Rand
#### Firdosh K. Doctor, Respondent, v Brenda L. Juliana et al., Defendants, and Scott H. Hughes, Appellant.

[716 NYS2d *1014196]

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff, a front-seat passenger in a motor vehicle operated by defendant Sesa N. Juliana, was injured when Juliana’s vehicle collided with a vehicle owned and operated by Scott H. Hughes (defendant) at the intersection of Walnut and Vine Streets in the City of Lockport. That intersection is controlled by a four-way flashing signal, flashing yellow for east/west traffic on Walnut Street and flashing red for north/south traffic on Vine Street. Juliana was operating her vehicle southbound on Vine Street and defendant was operating his vehicle westbound on Walnut Street. Juliana failed to stop at the flashing red signal and struck defendant’s vehicle in the area of the passenger side door.

Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint and all cross claims against him on the ground that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the failure of Juliana to stop at the flashing red signal. Supreme Court properly denied the motion. It is well established that there may be more than one proximate cause of an injury *(see, Argentina v Emery World Wide Delivery Corp.,*93 NY2d 554, 560, n *2; Forte v City of Albany,*279 NY 416, 422, *rearg denied*280 NY 572). Here, although it is undisputed that Juliana failed to stop, plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence to raise an issue of fact concerning the alleged negligence of defendant, i.e., whether he failed to use reasonable care when proceeding into the intersection *(see,*Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1113 [b]; § 1180 [a], [e]; *Shea v Judson,*283 NY 393, 398; *Walker v Dartmouth Plan Leasing Corp.,*180 AD2d 952, 953-954; *LaForge v All Am. Car Rental*[appeal No. 1], 155 AD2d 873; *see also,*1A NY PJI3d 2:80A). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Joslin, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Hayes, Wisner and Kehoe, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 263 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 263

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow employers a tax 
                credit for hiring displaced homemakers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 2005

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow employers a tax 
                credit for hiring displaced homemakers.

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

SECTION 1. DISPLACED HOMEMAKERS ESTABLISHED AS A TARGETED GROUP FOR 
              PURPOSES OF COMPUTING THE CREDIT FOR EMPLOYMENT OF 
              CERTAIN NEW EMPLOYEES.

    (a) General Rule.--Paragraph (1) of section 51(d) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to members of targeted groups) is 
amended by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (G), by striking 
the period at the end of subparagraph (H) and inserting ``, or'', and 
by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(I) a displaced homemaker.''.
    (b) Displaced Homemaker Defined.--Section 51(d) of such Code 
(relating to members of targeted groups) is amended by redesignating 
paragraphs (10), (11), and (12) as paragraphs (11), (12), and (13), 
respectively, and by inserting after paragraph (9) the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(10) Displaced homemaker.--The term `displaced homemaker' 
        means an individual who--
                    ``(A) has not worked in the labor force for the 5-
                year period ending on the hiring date but has, during 
                such period, worked in the home providing unpaid 
                services for family members, and
                    ``(B)(i) has been dependent on public assistance or 
                on the income of another family member but is no longer 
                supported by that income, or
                    ``(ii) is receiving public assistance on account of 
                dependent children in the home.''.
    (c) Termination not to Apply.--Paragraph (4) of section 51(c) of 
such Code (relating to termination) is amended by adding at the end 
thereof the following flush sentence:
 ``The preceding sentence shall not apply in the case of any displaced 
homemaker.''.
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to amounts paid or incurred after the date of enactment of this 
Act to individuals who begin work for the employer after such date.
                                 <all>
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 42

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 42 appear at 71 FR 34522, June 15, 2006.

#### § 42.42 Petitions for immediate relative or preference status.

*Petition for immediate relative or preference status.* The consular officer may not issue a visa to an alien as an immediate relative entitled to status under 201(b), a family-sponsored immigrant entitled to preference status under 203(a)(1)-(4), or an employment-based preference immigrant entitled to status under INA 203(b)(1)-(5), unless the officer has received a petition filed and approved in accordance with INA 204 or official notification of such filing and approval.

[56 FR 49682, Oct. 1, 1991]
#### § 213.6 Omission not a defense.

Failure by USAID to comply with any provision of this part is not available to a debtor as a defense against payment of a debt.

[67 FR 47258, July 18, 2002. Redesignated at 86 FR 31141, June 11, 2021]
Editorial Note on Part 62
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 62 appear at 64 FR 54539, Oct. 7, 1999, and 67 FR 17612, 17613, Apr. 11, 2002.

§ 62.11 Duties of Responsible Officers and Alternate Responsible Officers. Responsible Officers must train and supervise Alternate Responsible Officers and ensure that these officials are in compliance with the Exchange Visitor Program regulations. Responsible Officers and Alternate Responsible Officers must: ( a ) Be thoroughly familiar with the Exchange Visitor Program regulations, relevant immigration laws, and all federal and state regulations and laws pertaining to the administration of their exchange visitor program(s), including the Department of State's and the Department of Homeland Security's policies, manuals, instructions, and guidance on SEVIS and all other operations relevant to the Exchange Visitor Program; if Responsible Officers and Alternate Responsible Officers work with programs with an employment component, they also must have a detailed knowledge of federal, state, and local laws pertaining to employment, including the Fair Labor Standards Act;
( b ) Monitor that the exchange visitor obtains sufficient advice and assistance to facilitate the successful completion of his or her exchange visitor program;
( c ) Conduct all official communications relating to their sponsor's exchange visitor program with the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security. A sponsor must include its exchange visitor program number on all correspondence submitted to the Department of State and to the Department of Homeland Security;
( d ) Monitor to ensure that that sponsor spam filters do not block receipt of SEVIS or Department of State and Department of Homeland Security notices; and
( e ) Control and issue Forms DS-2019 as set forth in § 62.12.
[79 FR 60307, Oct. 6, 2014]