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



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT November 8, 2004 Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W
Washington, D.C. 20549 Ladies and Gentlemen: The certification set forth below is being submitted to the Securities and
Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complying with Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code. This certification is not to
be deemed filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and does not
constitute a part of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the Report)
accompanying this letter. H. Wayne Huizenga, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Boca Resorts,
Inc., and Wayne Moor, the Senior Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial
Officer of Boca Resorts, Inc., each certifies that:  1.
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of
Boca Resorts, Inc. /s/ H. WAYNE HUIZENGAName:
    H. Wayne HuizengaChairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer /s/ WAYNE MOORName:
    Wayne MoorSenior Vice President, Treasurer and
Chief Financial Officer
#### Robert Singer, an Infant, by His Guardian ad Litem, David Singer, et al., Appellants, v. Grace Sitt, Respondent.

Motion by appellants to dispense with printing, granted. The appeal will be heard on a typewritten record and on appellants’ typewritten brief. Appellants are directed to file one copy of the typewritten record and six copies of their typewritten brief and to serve one copy of each on respondent. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Pette, JJ., concur.
#### Paul Palmieri, Appellant, v Windowrama, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[715 NYS2d 652]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Werner, J.), entered September 15, 1999, which, upon an order of the same court entered July 30, 1999, granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, is in favor of the defendants and against him, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered September 15, 1999, upon an order of the same court, entered July 30, 1999, granting summary judgment to the defendants. However, a previous appeal by the plaintiff from the order giving rise to the judgment *(see, Palmieri v Windowrama, Inc.*[App Div Docket No. 1999-08211]) was dismissed for failure to perfect by decision and order on motion of this Court dated April 4, 2000 *(see,*22 NYCRR 670.8 [h]). That dismissal constituted an adjudication on the merits with respect to all issues which could have been reviewed therein, and we decline to review those same issues on this appeal from the judgment entered on the order *(see, Rubeo v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co.,*93 NY2d 804; *Bray v Cox,*38 NY2d 350). Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Gold-stein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
### §4605. Displaced persons not eligible for assistance

#### (a) In general

Except as provided in subsection (c), a displaced person shall not be eligible to receive relocation payments or any other assistance under this chapter if the displaced person is an alien not lawfully present in the United States.

#### (b) Determinations of eligibility

#### (1) Promulgation of regulations

Not later than 1 year after November 21, 1997, after providing notice and an opportunity for public comment, the head of the lead agency shall promulgate regulations to carry out subsection (a).

#### (2) Contents of regulations

Regulations promulgated under paragraph (1) shall—

(A) prescribe the processes, procedures, and information that a displacing agency must use in determining whether a displaced person is an alien not lawfully present in the United States;

(B) prohibit a displacing agency from discriminating against any displaced person;

(C) ensure that each eligibility determination is fair and based on reliable information; and

(D) prescribe standards for a displacing agency to apply in making determinations relating to exceptional and extremely unusual hardship under subsection (c).

#### (c) Exceptional and extremely unusual hardship

If a displacing agency determines by clear and convincing evidence that a determination of the ineligibility of a displaced person under subsection (a) would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to an individual who is the displaced person's spouse, parent, or child and who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States, the displacing agency shall provide relocation payments and other assistance to the displaced person under this chapter if the displaced person would be eligible for the assistance but for subsection (a).

#### (d) Limitation on statutory construction

Nothing in this section affects any right available to a displaced person under any other provision of Federal or State law.

(Pub. L. 91–646, title I, §104, as added Pub. L. 105–117, §1, Nov. 21, 1997, 111 Stat. 2384.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (c), was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 91–646, Jan. 2, 1971, 84 Stat. 1894, known as the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4601 of this title and Tables.
§ 227.205 Professional and technical services. ( a ) The prohibition on the use of appropriated funds, in § 227.100 (a), does not apply in the case of a payment of reasonable compensation made to an officer or employee of a person requesting or receiving a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement or an extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement if payment is for professional or technical services rendered directly in the preparation, submission, or negotiation of any bid, proposal, or application for that Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement or for meeting requirements imposed by or pursuant to law as a condition for receiving that Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
( b ) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, “professional and technical services” shall be limited to advice and analysis directly applying any professional or technical discipline. For example, drafting of a legal document accompanying a bid or proposal by a lawyer is allowable. Similarly, technical advice provided by an engineer on the performance or operational capability of a piece of equipment rendered directly in the negotiation of a contract is allowable. However, communications with the intent to influence made by a professional (such as a licensed lawyer) or a technical person (such as a licensed accountant) are not allowable under this section unless they provide advice and analysis directly applying their professional or technical expertise and unless the advice or analysis is rendered directly and solely in the preparation, submission or negotiation of a covered Federal action. Thus, for example, communications with the intent to influence made by a lawyer that do not provide legal advice or analysis directly and solely related to the legal aspects of his or her client's proposal, but generally advocate one proposal over another are not allowable under this section because the lawyer is not providing professional legal services. Similarly, communications with the intent to influence made by an engineer providing an engineering analysis prior to the preparation or submission of a bid or proposal are not allowable under this section since the engineer is providing technical services but not directly in the preparation, submission or negotiation of a covered Federal action.
( c ) Requirements imposed by or pursuant to law as a condition for receiving a covered Federal award include those required by law or regulation, or reasonably expected to be required by law or regulation, and any other requirements in the actual award documents.
( d ) Only those services expressly authorized by this section are allowable under this section.
#### Erie County Board of Social Welfare, Respondent, v. Richard Tanyi, Appellant.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed.
#### § 1600.149 Program accessibility: Discrimination prohibited.

Except as otherwise provided in § 1600.150, no qualified handicapped person shall, because the agency's facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by handicapped persons, be denied the benefits of, be excluded from participation in, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity conducted by the agency.
#### BIEHN, Appellant, v. KERZ et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 10, 1905.)

Action by Martin *S.*Biehn against Elizabeth Kerz and John Kerz, impleaded, etc.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

HOOKER, J., not voting.
Exhibit 32(i)



Certification



STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

OF TICE TECHNOLOGY, INC.

PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tice Technology, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2003 as amended and restated and as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the Report), I, Charles R. West, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: February 11, 2004



/s/    CHARLES R. WESTCharles R. West, President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Phyllis Tomei, Respondent, v Pasquale Tomei, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 3.)

[832 NYS2d 848]

Appeal, by permission of *1151the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, from an amended order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Ann Marie Taddeo, J.), entered March 3, 2006. The amended order adjudged that plaintiff is to receive, for a period of 64 months, an additional monthly sum from defendant’s future monthly pension benefits.

It is hereby ordered that the amended order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs.

Same memorandum as in *Tomei v Tomei*(39 AD3d 1149 [2007]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P, Martoche, Smith, Fahey and Green, JJ.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

In the Interest of K.A.N.C. and N.A.K.C., 

Children

No. 06-14-00074-CV

Appeal from the County Court at Law #1 of 

Gregg County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2013-

1530-DR). Opinion delivered by Justice 

Carter, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant has adequately indicated her inability to pay costs of appeal. 

Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED DECEMBER 23, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
### §4335. Efforts supplemental to existing authorizations

The policies and goals set forth in this chapter are supplementary to those set forth in existing authorizations of Federal agencies.

(Pub. L. 91–190, title I, §105, Jan. 1, 1970, 83 Stat. 854.)
### §300ee–20. Technical assistance and provision by Secretary of supplies and services in lieu of grant funds

#### (a) Technical assistance

The Secretary may provide training and technical assistance to States with respect to the planning, development, and operation of any program or service carried out pursuant to this part. The Secretary may provide such technical assistance directly or through grants or contracts.

#### (b) Provision by Secretary of supplies and services in lieu of grant funds

(1) Upon the request of a State receiving payments under this part, the Secretary may, subject to paragraph (2), provide supplies, equipment, and services for the purpose of aiding the State in carrying out such part and, for such purpose, may detail to the State any officer or employee of the Department of Health and Human Services.

(2) With respect to a request described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall reduce the amount of payments under section 300ee–11(a) of this title to the State by an amount equal to the costs of detailing personnel and the fair market value of any supplies, equipment, or services provided by the Secretary. The Secretary shall, for the payment of expenses incurred in complying with such request, expend the amounts withheld.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXV, formerly title XV, §2510, as added Pub. L. 100–607, title II, §221, Nov. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 3101; amended Pub. L. 100–690, title II, §2619(g) [(h)], Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4243; renumbered title XXV, Pub. L. 101–93, §5(e)(1), Aug. 16, 1989, 103 Stat. 612.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 2510 of act July 1, 1944, was successively renumbered by subsequent acts, see section 238i of this title.

#### Amendments

1988—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 100–690 substituted "section 300ee–11(a) of this title" for "the program involved".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1988 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–690 effective immediately after enactment of Pub. L. 100–607, which was approved Nov. 4, 1988, see section 2600 of Pub. L. 100–690, set out as a note under section 242m of this title.
#### In the Matter of Fay Smokler, Respondent, v. Robert E. Herman, as State Rent Administrator, Appellant.

Motion by appellant for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
#### The Tillotson & Wolcott Company and Others, Appellants, v. Christoffer Hannevig and Another, Copartners, etc., Respondents.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Dowling, Page and Merrell, JJ.
<PAGE>

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 on Form 10-QSB of ERF Wireless Inc. (the
"Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned R. Greg Smith, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of ERF Wireless Inc., certifies, 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.



Dated: November 21, 2005

By: /s/ R. Greg Smith
    ----------------------------------------------------
    R. Greg Smith
    Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
    (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial
    and Accounting Officer)
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-1052

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Octavius Devon Coplen

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines

____________

Submitted: May 14, 2018

Filed: July 24, 2018

[Unpublished] 

____________

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, BEAM and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Octavius Coplen, having been released from custody, began a four-year term

of supervised release on August 24, 2017. From the outset of the supervised release

period, the United States Probation Office had difficulty locating Coplen at the

residence where he had indicated he planned to reside. After numerous unsuccessful

attempts–ultimately over a span of nearly four-months–to conduct home visits at the
designated residence, the probation office filed a request to modify Coplen's

conditions ofsupervised release. The petition alleged Coplen violated his conditions

by failing to notify the probation office of a change in residence, and asked for a

modification requiring Coplen to wear a monitoring device. The district court found

1

by a preponderance of the evidence that Coplen had violated the conditions of

supervised release, and modified his supervision to require him to wear a GPS

monitor for the next 120 days. This order was entered on December 19, 2017. 

Coplen appealed and his case was submitted to this court on May 14, 2018. At the

time of submission, counsel for both Coplen and the government informed the court

that the 120-day GPS monitoring period ended on April 16, 2018, and the device was

removed from Coplen at that time. 

The sole issue in this appeal isthe propriety of the finding that Coplen violated

his supervision conditions and the attachment of the GPS monitor. Because the

revocation sentence has been served (the monitor has been removed), and Coplen has

not identified any collateral consequences that might amount to a concrete and

continuing injury based upon the revocation, we find that the case is moot. See

Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (holding that an individual who challenges

a parole revocation and has completed the term imposed must demonstrate "some

concrete and continuing injury other than the now-ended incarceration or parole");

United States v. Stanko, 762 F.3d 826, 828 (8th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (noting that

the possibility of a supervised release violation being held against the defendant in

a future proceeding did not establish a concrete and continuing injury). The appeal

is dismissed.

______________________________

The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for

1

the Southern District of Iowa. 

-2-
Second Amendment to Special Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreements



  
 Exhibit 10.4 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO 
 HYATT
HOTELS CORPORATION 
 SPECIAL RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AWARD AGREEMENTS 

WHEREAS, Hyatt Hotels Corporation (the “Company”) has entered into certain Special Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreements pursuant
to which the Company awarded certain employees the right to receive shares of common stock of the Company on the dates specified in such agreements (“RSU Agreements”); 

WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the restrictive covenants set forth in the RSU Agreements; and 

WHEREAS, to the extent not defined herein, capitalized terms shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the RSU Agreements; 

WHEREAS, this Second Amendment shall apply to all RSU Agreements as in effect on September 12, 2010, other than the RSU Agreement with Mark S.
Hoplazmazian with a grant date of May 2, 2008, which is subject to a separate similar amendment. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the RSU
Agreements are hereby amended effective as of September 12, 2010 by deleting the penultimate sentence in the Section entitled “Nonsolicitation & Noncompetition Covenants” and replacing it with the following: 

“In the event of a material breach of the Covenants, the Participant shall forfeit all unvested Awards made under the Plan; and, additionally,
(i) in the event of a material breach of the Covenants during the Participant’s employment, the Participant shall forfeit any vested Award made under the Plan that vested within a one (1) year period prior to the date of the material
breach; and (ii) in the event of a material breach of the Covenants after the Participant’s Termination of Service, the Participant shall forfeit any vested Award made under the Plan that vested within a one (1) year period prior to
the date of the Participant’s Termination of Service.” 
 In all other regards the RSU Agreements shall remain in full force and effect.

  

			
	HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION
		
	 By:
	 	 
	 Its:
	 	


 Dated:
                    , 2010
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 Defense

###### Department of the Navy 

# AGENCY:

Department of the Navy, DOD. 

# ACTION:

Notice of closed meeting; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Department of the Navy published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         of January 30, 2004, announcing a closed meeting of the CNO Executive Panel. The document contained an incorrect date and time.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lieutenant Commander Christopher Corgnati, CNO Executive Panel, 4825 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22311, (703) 681-4909. 

## Correction 

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         of January 30, 2004, in FR Doc. 04-2048, on page 4498, in the third column, correct the                         **DATES**                         caption to read:                     

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 10, 2004, from 4 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. 

Dated: February 4, 2004. 

J.T. Baltimore, 

Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 04-2777 Filed 2-6-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3810-FF-U
### §3796cc–5. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3796cc–5 was editorially reclassified as section 10366 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.