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

         I, Jeffrey A. Leddy, Chief Executive Officer and President of
SkyTerra Communications, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

          (1)  The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
               ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
               Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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.


                                     By:  /s/ JEFFREY A. LEDDY
                                          -------------------------------
                                         Name:  Jeffrey A. Leddy
                                         Title: Chief Executive Officer
                                                and President
                                                (Principal Executive Officer and
                                                Principal Financial Officer)
                                         Date: November 10, 2004


         This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company
for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906,
or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Subpart 22.7 - [Reserved]

Parent topic: Part 22 - Application of Labor Laws to Government Acquisitions
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 Frontier Energy Corp (the "Company") on
Form  10-K/A  for  the  period  ending  December  31,  2007  as  filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I,  Rick
Shykora,  Chief  Executive  Officer,  and acting Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, do certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

(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: July 29, 2010

/s/ Rick Shykora
-----------------------
By: Rick Shykora
Its: Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer
#### § 4284.961 Grant servicing.

All grants awarded under this subpart shall be serviced in accordance with 7 CFR part 1951, subparts E and O, and the Departmental Regulations with the exception that delegation of the post-award servicing of the program does not require the prior approval of the Administrator.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION 

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS

 Case No. 3:19md2885 

LIABILITY LITIGATION 

This Document Relates to: 

Kelley, 7:20cv153 

 

Judge M. Casey Rodgers 

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones 

EXHIBITS ORDER NO. 4 

This Order addresses Defendants’ objections to exhibits identified on 

Plaintiff’s first priority exhibit list dated March 2, 2022. The Court’s rulings are set 

forth and highlighted in the attached Exhibit A. 

SO ORDERED this 19th day of March, 2022. 

 

 M. CASEY RODGERS 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 7:20-cv-00153-MCR-GRJ Document 129 Filed 03/19/22 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

TAJHON WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv5155-MCR-HTC

OFFICER G. CULPEPPER,

Defendant.

________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation dated April 21, 2020. ECF No. 7. The parties have been 

furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an 

opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 

636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of any timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections 

thereto timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should 

be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this Order.

Case 3:20-cv-05155-MCR-HTC Document 9 Filed 05/07/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv5155-MCR-HTC

2. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant are DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE.

3. The clerk shall close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 7th day of May 2020.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05155-MCR-HTC Document 9 Filed 05/07/20 Page 2 of 2
APPENDIX D 

FY 2004 GENERAL 

INFORMATION PAGE 

FY 2004 APPLICATION 

CHECKLIST 

APPLICATION RECEIPT RECORD, 

IHS-815-1A (Rev. 4/97) 
FY 2004 GENERAL INFORMATION PAGE 

TRIBAL ORGANIZATION: ______________________________________ 

 ______________________________________ 

MAILING ADDRESS: ______________________________________ 

 ______________________________________ 

 ______________________________________ 

PROJECT DIRECTOR: ______________________________________ 

 ADDRESS: ______________________________________ 

 ______________________________________ 

 ______________________________________ 

 PHONE: ______________________________________ 

 EMAIL (if available): ______________________________________ 

CONTACT PERSON 

(if additional information is needed): _______________________________________ 

 PHONE: _______________________________________ 

FUNDS REQUESTED (each year if applicable): ___________________ 1st yr 

 ___________________ 2nd yr 

___________________ 3rd yr 

PROJECT PERIOD (how long will project take): 1 yr 2 yrs 3 yrs 

PROJECT TYPE: Feasibility Planning Evaluation HMS 

PRIORITY GROUP: Priority I Priority II Priority III 
FY 2004 Tribal Management Grant Application Checklist 

 

Applicant Name: ______________________________________________________ 

 

 IHS 

ITEM APPLICANT GRANT PROGRAM

 

1. Application Receipt Record _____ _____ _____

2. FY 2004 Application Checklist _____ _____ _____

3. FY 2004 General Information Page _____ _____ _____

4. Current Tribal Resolution(s)

a. Final Signed _____ _____ _____

b. Draft Unsigned _____ _____ _____

5. Documentation of Restored Tribes _____ _____ _____ 

(Priority I only) 

6. Documentation of Priority II Participation _____ _____ _____ 

7. Documentation of Consortium Participation _____ _____ _____

8. SF 424 _____ _____ _____

9. SF 424A _____ _____ _____

10. SF 424B _____ _____ _____

11. Certifications (pages 17-19) _____ _____ _____

12. PHS-5161 Checklist (pages 25-26) _____ _____ _____

13. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities _____ _____ _____

14. Table of Contents (1 page only) _____ _____ _____

15. Abstract (1 page only - optional) _____ _____ _____

16. Project Narrative (14 pages maximum) _____ _____ _____

a. Introduction and Need for Assistance _____ _____ _____

b. Project Objective(s), Approach and 

Results and Benefits _____ _____ _____ 

c. Project Evaluation _____ _____ _____

d. Organizational Capabilities/Qualifications _____ _____ _____

17. Categorical Budget & Budget Justification _____ _____ _____

18. Multi-year Summary & Budget Justification _____ _____ _____

19. Appendices: 

a. Workplan _____ _____ _____

b. Resumes _____ _____ _____

c. Position Descriptions _____ _____ _____

d. Consultant Scope of Work _____ _____ _____

e. Indirect Cost Agreement _____ _____ _____ 

f. Organizational Chart (optional) _____ _____ _____

 

Applicant Reviewers Name: _________________________________ Date: ___________ 

IHS Grant Reviewers Name: _________________________________ Date: ___________ 

IHS Program Reviewers Name: _______________________________ Date: ___________ 

COMPLETE AND RETURN WITH FINAL APPLICATION
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Malcolm Walker, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on June 24, 1977, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. (See *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Fein, J. P., Bloom, Silverman, Ross and Yesawich, JJ.
Case 5:03-cv-00260-RS-WCS Document 286 Filed 03/23/07 Page 1 of 9
Case 5:03-cv-00260-RS-WCS Document 286 Filed 03/23/07 Page 2 of 9
Case 5:03-cv-00260-RS-WCS Document 286 Filed 03/23/07 Page 3 of 9
Case 5:03-cv-00260-RS-WCS Document 286 Filed 03/23/07 Page 4 of 9
Case 5:03-cv-00260-RS-WCS Document 286 Filed 03/23/07 Page 5 of 9
Case 5:03-cv-00260-RS-WCS Document 286 Filed 03/23/07 Page 6 of 9
Case 5:03-cv-00260-RS-WCS Document 286 Filed 03/23/07 Page 7 of 9
Case 5:03-cv-00260-RS-WCS Document 286 Filed 03/23/07 Page 8 of 9
Case 5:03-cv-00260-RS-WCS Document 286 Filed 03/23/07 Page 9 of 9
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case No. 5:02cr19-RH

vs. Case No. 5:05cv68-RH/WCS

COLLIS EDWARD HOBBY, 

Defendant.

 /

ORDER TO RESPOND TO § 2255 MOTION

In response to the court's order, doc. 78, Defendant filed an amended 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 motion. Doc. 79. 

The court has reviewed the amended motion pursuant to the Rules Governing §

2255 Proceedings, and the Government is directed to file an answer, motion, or other

response in compliance with § 2255 Rule 5(b). If appropriate the Government shall

include the initial brief or other briefs from the direct appeal, and may rely on the

statement of facts presented there. Defendant may reply to the Government's

arguments within the time set by this order, but is not required to do so. § 2255 Rule

5(d). 

Case 5:02-cr-00019-RH-WCS Document 80 Filed 07/14/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case Nos. 5:02cr19-RH and 5:05cv68-RH/WCS

The court will review the record after the Government's arguments and

Defendant's reply (if any) are filed. If it does not appear that a hearing or additional

argument is warranted, then the undersigned will enter a report and recommendation for

disposition of the § 2255 motion; if an evidentiary hearing is warranted, counsel will be

appointed. § 2255 Rule 8(b) and (c).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The clerk shall furnish a copy of amended § 2255 motion (doc. 79) and this

order to the United States Attorney for this District, who shall file an answer, motion, or

other response no later than September 14, 2005. 

2. If review of the PSR is necessary, the Probation Office shall allow counsel for

the Government to review the PSR upon request.

3. Defendant shall file a reply, if desired, no later than October 14, 2005. 

DONE AND ORDERED on July 14, 2005.

S/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:02-cr-00019-RH-WCS Document 80 Filed 07/14/05 Page 2 of 2
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 16, 2015

No. 04-15-00120-CV

UNIVERSITY OF INCARNATE WORD AND CHRISTOPHER CARTER,

Appellants

v.

Valerie REDUS, Individually, and Robert M. Redus, Individually and as Administrator of the 

Estate of Robert Cameron Redus,

Appellees

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-07249

Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Before the Court is University of the Incarnate Word’s (UIW) Motion to Enforce the 

Automatic Stay. On June 24, 2015, this Court conditionally granted UIW’s Motion for Writ of 

Mandamus, providing the same relief requested in this instant motion. 

In the Order on that date, this Court directed the trial court to vacate its order compelling 

discovery responses on or before July 9, 2015. This Court received notice the trial court 

complied with this Court’s Order. For this reason, UIW’s Motion to Enforce the Automatic Stay 

is dismissed as moot. 

It is so ORDERED on July 16, 2015.

PER CURIAM 

ATTESTED TO: ___________________________

 Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

GARY LEE SEYMOUR, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RICKY D. DIXON,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:20-cv-214-TKW/MJF

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT LIST

Per the Court’s Order on pretrial documents (Docs. 65, 74), Plaintiff, 

through his counsel, identifies the following exhibits for use at trial:

1. Grievances and appeals submitted by Plaintiff.

2. Plaintiff’s medical records.

3. Records from Centurion of Florida, LLC.

4. Plaintiff’s classification file. 

5. Any of Plaintiff’s filings, including affidavits, docketed in this case.

6. The November 8, 2021 settlement agreement entered into between 

Disability Rights Florida, Inc. and the Florida Department of Corrections (FDC). 

7. FDC manuals, policies, guidelines, procedures, and bulletins 

concerning disability accommodations for paralyzed and/or incontinent inmates. 

Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 93 Filed 03/10/23 Page 1 of 3
2 

8. Samples of the type and size of diapers provided to Plaintiff at 

Northwest Florida Reception Center and Reception and Medical Center. 

9. All documents necessary for rebuttal or impeachment.

10. Any exhibit listed by Defendant for which no objection is made. 

Dated: March 10, 2023. 

 Respectfully submitted,

 SLATER LEGAL PLLC

 By: /s/ James M. Slater 

 James M. Slater (FBN 111779)

 113 S. Monroe Street

 Tallahassee, Florida 32301

james@slater.legal

 Tel.: (305) 523-9023

 -andLAW OFFICE OF JAMES COOK

By: /s/ James V. Cook 

James V. Cook (FBN 0966843)

314 W. Jefferson Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Tel. (850) 222-8080

Fax (850) 561-0836

cookjv@gmail.com 

 Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 93 Filed 03/10/23 Page 2 of 3
3 

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on March 10, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk by using the CM/ECF system, which will serve a copy on 

all counsel of record.

 By: /s/ James M. Slater 

 James M. Slater

Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 93 Filed 03/10/23 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:94-cr-01022-MP-AK   Document 15   Filed 03/14/08   Page 1 of 1
#### Luella Breazeal, Appellant, v. Rent-A-Car Club of America, Defendant, and Marion Harris, Respondent.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 20, 1968, which denied her motion to restore the action to the Ready Day Calendar. Order reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and motion granted, upon condition that plaintiff’s attorneys shall personally pay respondent $250; otherwise, order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Said $250 shall be paid within 10 days after entry of the order hereon. As we recently stated in *Barrada*v. *Target Constr. Corp.*(31 A D 2d 810), we would not ordinarily disturb the exercise of discretion in such a case. This caveat is particularly true under the facts of this case where a jury had been already selected. The excuse proffered by plaintiff’s trial lawyer for not proceeding to trial was not satisfactory (cf. *Gnoj*v. *City of New York,*29 A D 2d 404). Nevertheless, under the special circumstances here presented, the onerous consequences visited upon a seriously injured plaintiff passenger outweigh the damage and prejudice inflicted upon respondent and upon the control of the calendar in the trial parts. The tactics of the plaintiff’s attorney, however, warrant the imposition of personal costs as a precondition to the restoration of this case to the calendar. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Exhibit 31.1
                            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 on Form 10-K of Chell Group  Corporation
(the  "Company")  for the  period  ending  August  31,  2002 as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, David
Bolink,  Acting Chief Executive  Officer and Acting Chief Accounting  Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S)
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

/s/ David Bolink
--------------------
David Bolink

Acting Chief Executive Officer & Chief Accounting Officer
May 11, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet and the consolidated statement of operations and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>                       

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   mar-31-1997
<CASH>                                         784,677
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               875,318
<PP&E>                                         10,603,813
<DEPRECIATION>                                 4,320,326
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7,462,880
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          394,448
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,254,877
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7,462,880
<SALES>                                        496,655
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               496,655
<CGS>                                          188,749
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  221,066
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (6,002)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             118,141
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (25,299)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (25,299)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (25,299)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (1.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.49)
        


</TABLE>
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:96-cr-00020-MP-AK

JOHN CALVIN EVERETT,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 540, Motion for Reconsideration and Objection

to Court Order at Doc. 539. In that order, the Court denied Mr. Everett's Motion at Doc. 538. In

that motion, Mr. Everett moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) for an order vacating the Court's

previous denial of is § 2255 motion. In this latest motion he claims that the Court did not

consider all of the claims in Doc. 304. In the order at Doc. 539, the Court noted that the claims

raised by Mr. Everett were essentially Apprendi claims, which the Court explicitly addressed and

rejected in the order adopting the Report and Recommendation. 

Now, Mr. Everett claims that he was claiming that he was actually innocent of his

sentence and that the Court did not construe his claim as one of "actual innocence." Simply put,

Mr. Everett claims he is actually innocent of his sentence because the indictment did not charge

him with a quantity of drugs. Thus, he could only be sentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C),

which does not contain a specific drug quantity requirement. As the Court has now stated many

times, this is simply a recasting of an Apprendi claim, and Apprendi is not applicable

retroactively on collateral attack. The Court has thus completely considered Mr. Everett's claims
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:96-cr-00020-MP-AK

-- whether simply called Apprendi claims or called claims of "actual innocence" -- and has

rejected them. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

The motion for reconsideration, Doc. 540, is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of April, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
3.1106 Contract clause.       (a)                    						            Insert the clause at 52.203-16, Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest, in solicitations and contracts that-                                                         (1)                          								                Exceed the simplified acquisition threshold; and                                                            (2)                          								                Include a requirement for services by contractor employee(s) that involve performance of acquisition functions closely associated with inherently governmental functions for, or on behalf of, a Federal agency or department.                                                                             (b)                    						            If only a portion of a contract is for the performance of acquisition functions closely associated with inherently governmental functions, then the contracting officer shall still insert the clause, but shall limit applicability of the clause to that portion of the contract that is for the performance of such services.                                          (c)                    						            Do not insert the clause in solicitations or contracts with a self-employed individual if the acquisition functions closely associated with inherently governmental functions are to be performed entirely by the self-employed individual, rather than an employee of the contractor.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 3.11 - Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest for Contractor Employees Performing Acquisition Functions
16.203 Fixed-price contracts with economic

price adjustment.

16.203-1 Description.

16.203-2 Application.

16.203-3 Limitations.

16.203-4 Contract clauses.

Parent topic: Subpart 16.2 - Fixed-Price Contracts