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

                   Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350

     In  connection  with the  filing  with the  United  States  Securities  and
Exchange Commission of Emergent Group Inc.'s (the "Company") Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the "Report"), the undersigned,
the Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  hereby  certifies  that (i) in my
capacity  as an officer of the  Company,  (ii) to my own actual  knowledge,  and
(iii) solely for the purpose of compliance with 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, that:

(1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of ss.13(a) or 15(d) of the
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

     The  above  certification  is  given as of the  date of the  Report  and is
limited to the periods covered by the Report.

     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  undersigned  have executed this  Certificate  on
August 12, 2005.



                                                      By:   /s/ Bruce J. Haber
                                                            ------------------
                                                            Bruce J. Haber
                                                            Chief Executive
                                                            Officer
### §51. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Mar. 3, 1925, ch. 462, 43 Stat. 1144, which abolished office of surveyor general and transferred its functions to Field Surveying Service under Supervisor of Surveys, was superseded by Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1946, §403, eff. July 16, 1946, 11 F.R. 7876, 60 Stat. 1100. See note set out under section 1 of this title.

The office of surveyor general abolished in certain States by acts July 31, 1876, ch. 246, 19 Stat. 121, and Oct. 2, 1888, ch. 1069, 25 Stat. 525, and discontinued in others pursuant to R.S. §2218.

So far as they were not already superseded or obsolete by reason of abolition or discontinuance of the office, or otherwise, the following provisions were superseded by former provisions of this section:

R.S. §2207, providing for appointment of surveyors general in States and territories therein named, and acts Apr. 10, 1890, ch. 77, §1, 26 Stat. 53, and July 24, 1897, ch. 14, §2, 30 Stat. 215, providing for surveyors general in North and South Dakota and Alaska;

R.S. §§2208 to 2211; acts Apr. 10, 1890, ch. 77, §2, 26 Stat. 53; July 24, 1897, ch. 14, §3, 30 Stat. 215, concerning salaries of particular surveyors general;

R.S. §§2212 to 2214, concerning number and location, of offices, and place of residence, of surveyors general.

R.S. §§2215 and 2216, concerning bonds of surveyors general;

R.S. §2217, concerning duration of term of office of surveyors general;

R.S. §§2226 and 2227, concerning allowances for clerk hire and office expenses;

Act Mar. 3, 1893, ch. 211, 27 Stat. 709, relative to consolidation of offices of two or more surveyors general; and provisions of act May 24, 1922, ch. 199, 42 Stat. 556, and prior acts concerning detail of clerks from office of one surveyor general to another.
1 The Honorable R. E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. ___________ No. 95-1798

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Nathaniel David Hammond, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: December 27, 1995 Filed: January 4, 1996

___________ Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.

Nathaniel David Hammond appeals the 14-month sentence imposed by the district court 1following his guilty plea to one charge of defrauding a bank, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344, and one count of unauthorized use of an access device, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029. Counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Although we granted him leave to do so, Hammond has not filed a supplemental brief.

Counsel's Anders brief raises two issues. The first argument is that the district court incorrectly concluded Hammond inflicted a loss of $75,402.61, which resulted in a six-level increase in Hammond's base offense level, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(1)(G). Hammond maintained in his written objections to-2- the presentence investigation report that $8,000 of the total loss attributable to him should be excluded from the loss calculation, because this amount reflected credit card charges that were never claimed as a loss by the card holders. We disagree. A district court "need only make a reasonable estimate of the loss, given the available information." U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1 comment. (n.8). Under section 2F1.1, the defendant is responsible for the total value of the possible loss, rather than the actual loss. See United States v. Smith , 62 F.3d 1073, 1079 (8th Cir. 1995). Hammond never maintained, much less showed, that the $8,000 in credits to him derived from legitimate transactions. Therefore, the district court did not clearly err in assessing $75,402.61 as the total loss Hammond attempted to inflict. See United States v. Bender , 33 F.3d 21, 23 (8th Cir. 1994) (district court's factual findings as to amount of loss under § 2F1.1 reviewed for clear error).

The second argument is that the district court erred in considering at sentencing information derived from a prior psychological evaluation of Hammond that was not related to this case. We are persuaded upon our review of the record, however, that the district court did not consider the information, and that any error in failing to explicitly state that the court would not consider the material was harmless. See United States v. Beatty , 9 F.3d 686, 690-91 (8th Cir. 1993) (district court's failure to comply with Rule 32(c) was harmless error).

We have reviewed the record to determine whether any other nonfrivolous issues exist, in accordance with Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and have found no such issues.

Accordingly, Hammond's conviction and sentence are affirmed.-3- A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PEGASUS WIRELESS CORPORATION,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 09-02302 JSW

ORDER EXTENDING

DEADLINES

On June 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for turnover of funds. On June 9, 2015, the

Court issued an order setting a briefing schedule and hearing, in which it directed Plaintiff to

file proof of service of its motion and the Court’s order setting a briefing schedule on the City

of Anchorage. On July 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed a certificate of service in which it stated that it

had not served the Municipality of Anchorage with the Court’s order setting a briefing schedule

and hearing. However, on June 18, 2015, Plaintiff filed a letter from the Municipality of

Anchorage, in which it acknowledged that it had been served with Plaintiff’s motion and stated

that “[i]f the U.S. District Court orders the proceeds to be turned over to the SEC, the

Municipality fully intends to do so.” (Docket No. 159.)

The Court has not received an opposition from relief Defendant Tammy Knabb,

although all opposition briefs were due on July 17, 2015. The Court HEREBY EXTENDS the

deadline to file an opposition to the motion to July 29, 2015. If any interested party opposes the

motion, Plaintiff may file a reply by August 5, 2015. If the Court finds the motion suitable for

Case 3:09-cv-02302-JSW Document 161 Filed 07/22/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

disposition without oral argument, it shall advise the parties in advance of the hearing date.

If no opposition is filed on July 29, 2015, the Court will take the matter under

advisement and shall vacate the hearing date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2015 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-02302-JSW Document 161 Filed 07/22/15 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2751 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2751

 To amend section 526 of the National Housing Act to provide that any 
certification of a property for meeting energy efficiency requirements 
    for mortgage insurance under such Act shall be conducted by an 
    individual certified by an accredited home energy rating system 
                               provider.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 7, 2005

 Mr. Andrews introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend section 526 of the National Housing Act to provide that any 
certification of a property for meeting energy efficiency requirements 
    for mortgage insurance under such Act shall be conducted by an 
    individual certified by an accredited home energy rating system 
                               provider.

    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 ``FHA Energy Efficiency Act''.

SEC. 2. ENERGY EFFICIENCY CERTIFICATIONS.

    Section 526(a) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1735f-4(a)) 
is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(2) The Secretary shall require, with respect to any single- or 
multi-family residential housing subject to a mortgage insured under 
this Act, that any approval or certification of the housing for meeting 
any energy efficiency or conservation criteria, standards, or 
requirements pursuant to this title and any approval or certification 
required pursuant to this title with respect to energy conserving 
improvements or any solar energy system, shall be conducted only by an 
individual certified by a home energy rating system provider who has 
been accredited to conduct such ratings by the Home Energy Ratings 
System Council, the Residential Energy Services Network, or such other 
appropriate national organization, as the Secretary may provide.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### HOLZMAN v. KATZMAN et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

June 22, 1903.)

1. Servants—Injuries— Actions—Evidence—Sufficiency.

In an action for servant’s injuries caused by a fall; of bricks, where there is no proof of the application or violation of:the" provisions Of the labor law (Laws 1897, p. 468, c.' 415, § 20, as amended by Laws 1899, p. 351, c. 192) relative to the protection of persons employed on buildings in cities, nor of the cause of the fall of bricks, a finding of fault on the part of the owner of the building is without evidence to support it.

Appeal from City Court of New York,-Trial Term.

Action by Samuel Holzman against John Katzman, impleaded -with others. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and MacLEAN, JJ.

Nadal & Carrere, for appellant.

Morris Cukor, for respondent.

MacLEAN, J.

Assuming the evidence of direction, supervision, and control sufficient to connect the owner of the building- in process of construction as common master of the employés of his codefendants who had agreed to do the mason work, there was neither proof nor contention of the application or violation of the provisions of the labor law (Laws 1897, p. 468, c. 415, § 20, as amended by Laws 1899, p. 351, c. 192), nor does the case disclose the cause of the fall of the bricks in consequence of which the plaintiff sustained his injuries. Under the decision of Van Orden v. Acken, 28 App. Div. 160, 50 N. Y. Supp. 843, the maxim res ipsa loquitur does not apply. The finding of fault on the part of the owner of the building being, therefore, without evidence to support it, the judgment and order below in favor of the plaintiff must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.
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 filing of this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report (the "Report") of Rand Logistics, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ended March 31, 2013 with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby 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, as amended; 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: July 29, 2013/s/ Laurence S. LevyLaurence S. LevyExecutive Chairman (Principal Executive Officer)
### §841. Repealed. June 25, 1948, ch. 645, §21, 62 Stat. 862

Section, act May 21, 1872, ch. 178, 17 Stat. 137, related to offense and punishment of claim agent, attorney or other person for withholding military land bounty warrant. See section 290 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Sept. 1, 1948, see section 20 of act June 25, 1948.
§ 3288.15 Eligibility for dispute resolution. ( a ) *Initiation of actions.* Manufacturers, retailers, and installers of manufactured homes are eligible to initiate and participate in the HUD Manufactured Home Dispute Resolution Program. Homeowners may initiate action under, and be observers to, the HUD Manufactured Home Dispute Resolution Program.
( b ) *Eligible disputes.* Only disputes concerning alleged defects that have been reported to the manufacturer, retailer, installer, HUD, or a State Administrative Agency within 1 year after the date of the first installation of the manufactured home are eligible for resolution through the HUD Manufactured Home Dispute Resolution Program. The eligible dispute includes the defect alleged in a timely report and any related issues.
Exhibit 31

                                 CERTIFICATION

I, Moshe Zarmi, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Thinking Tools,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others with those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; and

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

(c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):

(a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely effect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weakness in internal controls; and

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls;
and


<PAGE>

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weakness.

Dated: February 12, 2004
                                                By: Moshe Zarmi
                                                Name:  Moshe Zarmi
                                                Title:  President and Chief
                                                        Executive Officer and
                                                        principal accounting
                                                        officer
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Center for Inherited Disease Research Access Committee.                    

*Date:*                         January 8, 2021.                    

*Time:*                         11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6700 B Rockledge Drive, Room 3185, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Barbara J. Thomas, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6700 B Rockledge Drive, Room 3185, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-8837,                         *barbara.thomas@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.172, Human Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: November 19, 2020.

Patricia B. Hansberger,

Supervisory Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2020-26110 Filed 11-24-20; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESPANOLA JACKSON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 09-cv-02143-RS 

ORDER RE STATUS

No later than August 31, 2015, plaintiffs shall either file a dismissal of this action, or the 

parties shall file a joint statement setting out their views as to what remains to be decided, and how 

the case should proceed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 14, 2015

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02143-RS Document 166 Filed 08/14/15 Page 1 of 1