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

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 of Amalgamated Pictures    Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending    March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and    Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the    "Report"), I, Avery Pack,    President, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.    Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of    the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

                   (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of    Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;    and

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

Date: May 4, 2006

| /s/ Avery Pack                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
| Avery Pack,           President and Chief Executive Officer           (Principal Executive Officer) and           Acting Chief Financial Officer           (Principal Financial Officer and           Principal Accounting Officer) |
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 Annual Report of Research
Frontiers Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert L. Saxe, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
     13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 L. Saxe
Robert L. Saxe
Chairman of the Board
and Chief Executive Officer
March 15, 2005
Case 4:97-cv0458-RH Document 109Filed 02/59Page 1of4Case 4:97-cv0458-RH Document 109Filed 02/59Page 2of4Case 4:97-cv0458-RH Document 109Filed 02/59Page 3of4Case 4:97-cv0458-RH Document 109Filed 02/59Page 4of
EXHIBIT  32







CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








Pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Southern Trust Securities Holding Corp., Inc. (the “Corporation”) certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that the Corporation’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and the information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.






August 31, 2011
By:
/s/ Robert EscobioRobert EscobioChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer








This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document, and may not be disclosed, distributed or used by any person for any reason other than as specifically required by law.
§ 319.59-2 General import prohibitions; exceptions. ( a ) [Reserved]
( b ) Articles listed in § 319.59-3 as prohibited importation pending risk evaluation, and articles regulated for Karnal bunt in § 319.59-4(a) may be imported for experimental, therapeutic, or developmental purposes under a controlled import permit issued in accordance with § 319.6 if: ( 1 ) Imported at the National Plant Germplasm Inspection Station, Building 580, Beltsville Agricultural Center East, Beltsville, MD 20705, or through any USDA plant inspection station listed in accordance with § 319.37-8(a);
( 2 ) Imported pursuant to a controlled import permit issued for such article and kept on file at the National Plant Germplasm Inspction Station;
( 3 ) Imported under conditions of treatment, processing, growing, shipment, or disposal specified on the controlled import permit and found by the Administrator to be adequate to prevent the introduction into the United States of tree, plant, or fruit diseases, injurious insects, and other plant pests, and
( 4 ) Imported with a controlled import tag or label securely attached to the outside of the container containing the article or securely attached to the article itself if not in a container, and with such tag or label bearing a controlled import permit number corresponding to the number of the controlled import permit issued for such article.
( c ) The importation of any host crops (including seed and any other plant parts) that are for planting or capable of being planted is restricted under Subpart H—Plants for Planting of this part.
[70 FR 8231, Feb. 18, 2005, as amended at 70 FR 71212, Nov. 28, 2005; 72 FR 43523, Aug. 6, 2007; 78 FR 25571, May 2, 2013; 83 FR 11866, Mar. 19, 2018; 84 FR 2429, Feb. 7, 2019]
#### Mary D. Coonradt et al., Respondents, v Averill Park Central School District et al., Appellants.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered May 31, 1978 in Rensselaer County, which granted claimants’ application for leave to serve late notices of claim pursuant to subdivision 5 of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law. Claimant Frederick D. Coonradt was 17 years old when, in football games on October 1, 1977 and October 8, 1977, he allegedly seriously injured his neck and cervical spine while competing as a member of respondent Averill Park Central School District’s high school football team. Asserting that the boy’s injuries resulted from respondents’ negligence, claimants thereafter served notices of claim upon respondents on April 3, 1978. Since this service was not effectuated within 90 days after the claim arose as provided in subdivision 1 of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law, however, *926claimants also moved at Special Term pursuant to subdivision 5 of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law for permission to serve the notices beyond the statutory period. Their motion was granted in an order which extended the time in which the notices could be served until April 4, 1978. This appeal followed. We hold that Special Term’s order should be affirmed. An examination of the record herein demonstrates that respondents had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim. Not only were the school district’s employees including the football coach, respondent Rocco Montesano, present when the infant claimant was injured (cf. *Matter of Wade v City of New York,*65 AD2d 534), but also written claims were made within the statutory period for the school district to pay the boy’s rapidly mounting medical bills. Additionally, claimant Mary D. Coonradt, the infant claimant’s mother and a widow, was understandably preoccupied following her son’s injuries with maintaining her full-time secretarial job to support her six children while at the same time arranging for special fusion surgery for her injured son. Also, she apparently believed that the school district would pay her son’s medical bills, and when these payments were not forthcoming, she then contacted an attorney on March 23, 1978. Significantly, the subject notices of claim were served shortly thereafter. Under these circumstances and it not appearing that respondents will be prejudiced by the late service of the notices of claim, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in permitting tardy service both as to the claim of the infant claimant and also the derivative claim of his mother (cf. *Bureau v Newcomb Cent. School Diet.,*74 AD2d 133; *Hubbard v County of Suffolk,*65 AD2d 567; *Matter of Matey v Bethlehem Cent. School Dist.,*63 AD2d 807; see, also, *Matter of Murray v City of New York,*30 NY2d 113). Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Kane, Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
#### § 400.676 [Reserved]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:95cr03089-15/RV

DUANE ROSHELL

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Senior Judge Roger Vinson on April 20, 2009

Motion/Pleadings: Motion to Reconsider Order Reducing Sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

 § 3582(c)(2) 

Filed by Defendant on 4/17/2009 Doc.# 1257 

RESPONSES:

 on Doc.# 

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

 s/Jerry Marbut

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Jerry Marbut

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 19th day of 

 June , 2009, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) 

 /s/ Roger Vinson

ROGER VINSON

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:95-cr-03089-RV Document 1283 Filed 06/19/09 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 3:20cr42/MCR

KIESHA TAYLON MANDEL

_____________________________/

ACCEPTANCE OF PLEA OF GUILTY

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate 

Judge, to which there have been no timely objections, the plea of guilty of the 

Defendant, KIESHA TAYLON MANDEL, to Counts One, Two, Three, and Four

of the indictment is hereby ACCEPTED. All parties shall appear before this Court 

for sentencing as directed.

DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of September 2020.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00042-MCR Document 32 Filed 09/03/20 Page 1 of 1
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION In the 

OF MARYLAND 

* Court of Appeals 

of Maryland 

V. 

Misc. Docket AG No. 21, 

SEUNG OH KANG September Term, 2015 

a/k/a SEUNG E. OH & SANDY 011 

ORDER 

This matter, having come before the Court upon the filing of a Petition for 

Disciplinary or Remedial Action and request for interim suspension pursuant to Maryland 

Rule 16-773(d), with attached true test copies of the Order of the Virginia State Bar 

Disciplinary Board revoking Respondent's right to practice law in Virginia dated January 

25, 2013, and supporting documentation; and it appearing that Seung Oh Kang (a/k/a 

Seung E. Oh and/or Sandy Oh) is also a member of the Bar of this Court; it is this 1st day 

of June, 2015, 

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that Respondent, Seung Oh 

Kang (a/k/a Seung E. Oh and/or Sandy Oh), be, and she is hereby, indefinitely suspended, 

effective immediately, from the further practice of law in the State of Maryland, pending 

further order of this Court, pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-773(d); and it is further, 

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name Seung Oh Kang 

(a/lc/a Seung E. Oh and/or Sandy Oh) from the register of attorneys, pursuant to Maryland 

Rule 16-760(e), shall certify that fact to the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund and the 

clerks of all judicial tribunals in the State. 

/s/ Glenn T. Harrell, Jr. 

Senior Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-02-1999
<CASH>                                           7,668
<SECURITIES>                                     5,252
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,267
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (801)
<INVENTORY>                                      5,565
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,561
<PP&E>                                          15,195
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (9,931)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,643
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,191
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            87
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,231
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,643
<SALES>                                          7,613
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,344
<CGS>                                            1,969
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,615
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,625
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     52
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 52
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        52
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
4.202 Agency distribution requirements.

Agencies shall limit additional distribution requirements to the minimum necessary for proper

performance of essential functions. When contracts are assigned for administration to a contract

administration office located in an agency different from that of the contracting office (see part 42),

the two agencies shall agree on any necessary distribution in addition to that prescribed in 4.201.

Parent topic: Subpart 4.2 - Contract Distribution
#### § 3300.34 General.

ATP, Annex 1, Appendix 2, paragraph 41, provides that approval of mechanically refrigerated equipment may be done on the basis of separate testing of the mechanical refrigerating appliance.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:89-cr-01018-MP-GRJ-2

WILNER VAL SAINT, 

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 1372, the government's Motion for Extension of

Time to File Response to defendant's motions at Doc. 1368 and 1370. Upon consideration, the

motions are granted and the government shall respond by Friday, June 7, 2013.

DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of April, 2013

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

Editorial Note on Part 271
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 271 appear at 78 FR 11972, Feb. 21, 2013.

§ 271.3 Delegations to FNS for administration. ( a ) *Delegation.* Within the Department, FNS acts on behalf of the Department in the administration of SNAP with the exception of those functions, which may be delegated to other agencies within the Department. The right is reserved at any time to withdraw, modify, or amend any delegation of authority. When authority is delegated to FNS, the responsibilities may be carried out by the Administrator or by another official of FNS, or by State agencies with respect to claims against households, as designated.
( b ) *Claims settlement.* FNS shall have the power to determine the amount of and to settle and adjust any claim arising under the provisions of the act or this subchapter, and to compromise or deny all or part of any claim.
( c ) *Demonstration authority.* FNS is authorized to undertake demonstration projects which test new methods designed to improve program administration and benefit delivery. FNS is authorized to initiate program research and evaluation efforts for the purposes of improving and assessing program administration and effectiveness. The procedure for initiating and conducting these projects is established in part 282.
[Amdt. 132, 43 FR 47882, Oct. 17, 1982]
The Honorable Donald E. O'Brien, United States District 1

Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.

___________

No. 96-1255

___________

Diane Lindgren, *

 *

Appellee, *

 *

v. * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the

Woodbury County; * Northern District of Iowa.

 *

Appellant, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Robert B. Carson, Jr., *

 *

Defendant. *

___________

 Submitted: April 29, 1996

 Filed: May 7, 1996

___________

Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Woodbury County appeals the district court's award of trial-level 1

attorney's fees to Diane Lindgren in her action under Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Having carefully

reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude that no error of

law or fact appears and that an opinion would lack precedential value.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We note that any request for

appellate-level attorneys' fees must be made in a separate motion within

fourteen days after entry of this court's judgment. See 8th Cir. R.

47C(a).
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
33-53809, 333-65947, and 333-3775 of Baldwin Piano & Organ Company on Form S-8
of our report dated March 14, 2001 (except for Note 16 as to which the date is
March 22, 2001) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Baldwin Piano &
Organ Company for the year ended December 31, 2000.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Cincinnati, Ohio
April 13, 2001
September 25, 2014

Dan Cohen Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, Regulation, and Energy Efficiency U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20585

Dear Mr. Cohen: Please find attached a corrected version of my earlier memorandum to you describing a September 12th meeting between myself and Dave McCurdy, representing the American Gas Association, and employees of the U.S. Department of Energy. I had submitted this memorandum, at your request, to assist in you in fulfilling your obligations to provide records of all ex parte communications relating to the ongoing consideration of natural gas furnace energy efficiency standards. On my memorandum to you dated September 23 rd , I incorrectly listed Secretary Ernie Moniz as attending the meeting. In fact, Dr. Moniz did not attend the meeting. After our meeting concluded, a s Mr. McCurdy and I were escorted out of the building, we encountered Dr. Moniz in the hallway outside of his office suite. Mr. Moniz greeted Mr. McCurdy and asked cordially what had brought him to the Department, and if the meeting had gone well. They exchanged pleasantries for a few moments and then Mr. McCurdy and I departed.

Wh ile my inclusion of the Secretary’s name on the memo was a well

- intended effort to be “complete,” on reflection I realize it was quite an overreach to characterize that brief, polite exchange between the Secretary and Mr. McCurdy as a meeting. Please accept my apologies for my error and for any inconvenience this has caused.

Sincerely, /s/ Kathryn Clay Kathryn Clay | Vice President, Policy Strategy American Gas Association 400 N. Capitol St., NW | Washington, DC | 20001 P: 202- 824 -7122 | F: 202-824-9125 | kclay@aga.org
2006-0641.

#### Leisky v. Jeffreys.

In Habeas Corpus. On petition for writ of habeas corpus of Jeremy Leisky. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
#### § 29.2563 Type 22.

That type of Fire-cured tobacco, known as Eastern District Fire-cured, produced principally in a section east of the Tennessee River in southern Kentucky and northern Tennessee.

[37 FR 13626, July 12, 1972. Redesignated at 49 FR 16757, Apr. 20, 1984 and 51 FR 40406, Nov. 7, 1986]
#### § 29.9221 Policy statement.

Public Law 97-98 enacted on December 22, 1981, amended section 320 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, to preserve the effectiveness of the tobacco program by discouraging the production of tobacco not under quota in states where tobacco farmers have elected to comply with marketing quotas. Under the amendment, any tobacco represented by the producer as nonquota which is produced in a state where producers have approved marketing quotas shall be determined to be subject to marketing quotas for the quota tobacco produced in that state having the highest price support, with the specific exemptions provided for in section 320(b) and set out in 7 CFR parts 724, 725, and 726 of these regulations. The regulations in this subpart set out procedures for requesting a Tobacco Classification Certificate which would certify that the inspected tobacco is readily and distinguishably different from all kinds of quota tobacco, as determined through application of the standards for inspection and identification of tobacco.
#### In the Matter of Pamela Baldwin, Petitioner, v State Division of Human Rights et al., Respondents.

The determination of the New York State Human Rights Appeal Board, dated July 9, 1979, annulling the order of the New York State Division of Human Rights rendered on May 28, 1979 and dismissing the complaint after a determination by the Division of Human Rights that there was no probable cause that the respondent, Equitable Life Assurance Society, engaged in unlawful discriminatory practices, vacated, on the law, and the order of the State Division of Human Rights, dated May 28, 1979, confirmed on the merits, without costs and disbursements. On petitioner’s administrative appeal, following the dismissal of her complaint by the State Division of Human Rights, the appeal board annulled, without reaching the merits, on the ground that the division had exceeded the statutory time limit from the filing of the complaint to the date of its final order and determination (Executive Law, § 297-a, subd 7, par c). It has been repeatedly held that the extended time limits provided by the recent amendment of section 297 are directory, not mandatory *(State Div. of Human Rights v Pennwalt Corp., Pharm. Div.,*66 AD2d 1006), and that "absent a showing of substantial prejudice or such egregious delay as will constitute prejudice as a matter of law, 'delay attributable solely to the administrative agency should not operate to foreclose relief to an innocent complainant who is not responsible for it’ ” *(State Div. of Human Rights v Pennwalt Corp., Pharm. Div., supra,*p 1007, citing *Matter of Tessey Plastics Corp. v State Div. of Human Rights,*62 AD2d 36, 40, affd 47 NY2d 789). Here, there is no evidence of delay by petitioner complainant or of prejudice to petitioner’s employer. Accordingly, we have examined the contentions of the petitioner and confirm the findings of the New York State Division of Human Rights, doing that which the New York State Human Rights Appeal Board should have done (see *Matter of Callaghan v State Div. of Human Rights,*72 AD2d 679). There was no discrimination on the ground of national origin. Concur—Fein, J. P., Sullivan, Lupiano, Silverman and Carro, JJ.