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



CERTIFICATION



I, Bruce Benn, Principal Executive Officer of Validian Corporation (the Company), in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, in connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) on the date hereof, that:



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



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



Date:  April 15, 2010







/s/Bruce Benn

Bruce Benn

President and Chief Executive Officer
#### § 25.513 Amount claimed.

The claimant shall state the amount claimed in the currency of the country where the incident occurred or where the claimant resided at the time of the incident.
<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 of Adams Resources & Energy,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 (the
"Report"), I, K. S. Adams, Jr., 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 the best of my 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.

/s/ K. S. Adams, Jr.
-----------------------------------
K. S. Adams, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
August 11, 2004

                                     - 33 -
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 112 (Friday, June 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 36698]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14545]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of Banks 
or Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. 225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than June 23, 2000.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (D. Michael Manies, 
Assistant Vice President), 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 
64198-0001:
    1. William P. Johnson, Boulder, Colorado; to acquire voting shares 
of FirstBank Holding Company of Colorado, Lakewood, Colorado, and 
thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of FirstBank, Littleton, 
Colorado; FirstBank of Adams County, Thornton, Colorado; FirstBank of 
El Paso County, Colorado Springs, Colorado; FirstBank of Arvada, 
Arvada, Colorado; FirstBank of Aurora, Aurora, Colorado; FirstBank of 
Avon, Avon, Colorado; FirstBank of Boulder, Boulder, Colorado; 
FirstBank of Breckenridge, Breckenridge, Colorado; FirstBank of Douglas 
County, Castle Rock, Colorado; FirstBank of Colorado Springs, Colorado 
Springs, Colorado; FirstBank of Cherry Creek, Denver, Colorado; 
FirstBank of Denver, Denver, Colorado; FirstBank of Longmont, Longmont, 
Colorado; FirstBank of Evergreen, Evergreen, Colorado; FirstBank of 
Northern Colorado, Fort Collins, Colorado; FirstBank of Greeley, 
Greeley, Colorado; FirstBank of Tech Center, Englewood, Colorado; 
FirstBank of Colorado, Lakewood, Colorado; FirstBank of South Jeffco, 
Littleton, Colorado; FirstBank of Lakewood, Lakewood, Colorado; 
FirstBank of Littleton, Littleton, Colorado; FirstBank of Arapahoe 
County, Littleton, Colorado; FirstBank of Parker, Parker, Colorado; 
FirstBank of Silverthorne, Silverthorne, Colorado; FirstBank of Vail, 
Vail, Colorado; FirstBank of North, Westminster, Colorado; and 
FirstBank of Wheat Ridge, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 5, 2000.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-14545 Filed 6-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
#### The CROSS COMPANY, Appellant, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Appellee.

No. 13459.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

Oct. 23, 1958.

H. William Butler, of Clark, Klein, Brucker & Waples, Detroit, Mich., for petitioner.

Thomas J. McDermott, Washington, D. C., and Jerome H. Brooks, Detroit, Mich., for respondent.

Before ALLEN, Chief Judge, MARTIN, Circuit Judge, and THORNTON, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This cause came on to be heard on petition of The Cross Company for review of an order of the National Labor Relations Board, which petitioner avers should be set aside.

The case involves the single issue of whether or not the board erred in reaching the same conclusion as did the trial examiner — that the petitioner discharged its employee, Ziolkowski, because of his union activity.

The decision of the National Labor Relations Board rested on a two-to-one vote. After consideration of the record and the briefs and oral arguments of the attorneys in the case, the report of the trial examiner and the majority and minority opinions of the board, we are in accord with the dissenting opinion of Member Rogers. We agree with his statements that, when Ziolkowski was discharged, the union had already lost the plant election of a bargaining agent; that Ziolkow-ski’s role in the union effort, which he supported, had been minor; and that he had not been an organizer. As pointed *747out by the dissenting board member, Rogers, the most serious expression of any anti-union sentiment chargeable to The Cross Company was directed, not against Ziolkowski, but against another employee, Szymanski, an apparent union organizer *who was not discharged.*

No violation of section 8(a) (2) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (2), on the part of The Cross Company is alleged or found to have been done. Upon the record as a whole, we agree with Member Rogers that the burden of showing that The Cross Company discharged Ziolkowski because of his support of the union has not been carried.

Accordingly, the order of the National Labor Relations Board is set aside; and the complaint filed August 15, 1956, is dismissed.
#### WILLIAM REDMOND and another, Respondents, *v*. WILLIAM HOGE and others, Appellants.

Motion for a reargument.

The decision of the General Term in this case is reported in 10 Supreme Court Reports (3 Hun), 171.

The motion was denied on the ground that the points urged upon the court were covered on the former argument, and that, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, a modification of the order might operate prejudicially to the relief sought by the complaint.

*John E. Burrill,*for the motion.

*Henry Nicoll,*opposed.

Opinion by

Davis, P. J.

Daniels, J., concurred.

Present — Davis, P. J., Daniels and Brady, JJ.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
#### § 52.22 Time limit for filing application.

An application for correction of a record must be filed within three years after the applicant discovered or reasonably should have discovered the alleged error or injustice. If an application is untimely, the applicant shall set forth reasons in the application why it is in the interest of justice for the Board to consider the application. An untimely application shall be denied unless the Board finds that sufficient evidence has been presented to warrant a finding that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to file timely.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-80128-CR-CANNON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GEORGE MURILLO,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant George Murilllo’s Unopposed

Motion to Continue Trial [ECF No. 16]. The Court has reviewed the Motion and is otherwise 

fully advised. Following that review, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial [ECF No. 

16] is GRANTED for the reasons stated in the Motion, including Defendant’s agreement to waive 

his rights under the Speedy Trial Act for the period caused by this continuance. The Court finds 

that the interests of justice served by a continuance outweigh any interest of the public or the 

Defendant in a speedy trial. As a result, the Court finds that the period of delay resulting from 

this continuance—i.e., from the date the Motion was filed, September 21, 2022, to including the 

date trial commences—is excludable time under the Speedy Trial Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161. 

The parties shall adhere to the following pre-trial and trial schedule:

1. Calendar call will be held on Tuesday, November 29, 2022, at 1:45 pm. The case is 

set for Jury Trial during the two-week trial period that begins December 5, 2022. 

2. All pre-trial motions and motions in limine must be filed by October 26, 2022. Each

Case 9:22-cr-80128-AMC Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/03/2022 Page 1 of 2
CASE NO. 22-80128-CR-CANNON

2

party is limited to filing one motion in limine; if there is more than one Defendant, 

Defendants shall file a combined motion.

3. All other instructions set forth in the Court’s Order Setting Trial [ECF No. 13] remain 

in effect. 

4. The parties are reminded to adhere to the Court’s Local Rules in all respects, including 

in the preparation of pre-trial motions.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 30th day of September

2022.

 _________________________________

 AILEEN M. CANNON

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 9:22-cr-80128-AMC Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/03/2022 Page 2 of 2
§ 331.9 Final appeal decision. ( a ) In accordance with the authorities contained in § 331.3(a), the division engineer will make a decision on the merits of the appeal. While reviewing an appeal and reaching a decision on the merits of an appeal, the division engineer can consult with or seek information from any person, including the district engineer.
( b ) The division engineer will disapprove the entirety of or any part of the district engineer's decision only if he determines that the decision on some relevant matter was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, not supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record, or plainly contrary to a requirement of law, regulation, an Executive Order, or officially promulgated Corps policy guidance. The division engineer will not attempt to substitute his judgment for that of the district engineer regarding a matter of fact, so long as the district engineer's determination was supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record, or regarding any other matter if the district engineer's determination was reasonable and within the zone of discretion delegated to the district engineer by Corps regulations. The division engineer may instruct the district engineer on how to correct any procedural error that was prejudicial to the appellant (*i.e.*, that was not a “harmless” procedural error), or to reconsider the decision where any essential part of the district engineer's decision was not supported by accurate or sufficient information, or analysis, in the administrative record. The division engineer will document his decision on the merits of the appeal in writing, and provide a copy of this decision to the applicant (using certified mail) and the district engineer.
( c ) The final decision of the division engineer on the merits of the appeal will conclude the administrative appeal process, and this decision will be filed in the administrative record for the project.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          18,574
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  292,432
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (271)
<INVENTORY>                                     35,824
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               350,774
<PP&E>                                          69,641
<DEPRECIATION>                                (41,820)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 379,318
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          325,633
<BONDS>                                          9,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              422
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,438
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   379,318
<SALES>                                      3,983,706
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,983,706
<CGS>                                        3,969,992
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,975,997
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 117
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,592
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,753
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,839
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,839
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.15


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4918 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4918

 To authorize and request the President to award the Medal of Honor to 
              James L. Cadigan of Hingham, Massachusetts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 20, 2000

 Mr. Delahunt introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize and request the President to award the Medal of Honor to 
              James L. Cadigan of Hingham, Massachusetts.

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

SECTION. 1. AUTHORIZATION AND REQUEST FOR AWARD OF MEDAL OF HONOR.

    Notwithstanding the time limitations specified in section 3744(b) 
of title 10, United States Code, the President is authorized and 
requested to award the Medal of Honor to James L. Cadigan of Hingham, 
Massachusetts, for conspicuous acts of gallantry at the risk of his 
life and beyond the call of duty in an assault to secure high ground 
north of Zerf, Germany, on February 26, 1945, during World War II.
                                 <all>
```
1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2773

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Northern

* District of Iowa

Robert Francis Meggers, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 19, 2004

Filed: March 19, 2004

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Robert Meggers appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1

for the Northern District of Iowa upon his guilty plea to possession of firearms by an

unlawful user of controlled substances, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) (Count

1); possession of a stolen firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(j) and 924(a)(2)

(Count 2); and possession of an unregistered short-barrel shotgun, in violation of 26
-2-

U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5861(d), and 5871 (Count 3). The district court sentenced Meggers

to concurrent 120-month prison terms on Counts 1 and 3, and 120 months on Count

2 with 15 months to be consecutive to the Count 1 sentence and the remainder to be

concurrent, plus 3 years supervised release. Counsel has moved to withdraw and filed

a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing for reversal that the

district court erred in denying an acceptance of responsibility reduction. In his pro

se supplemental brief, Meggers asserts that he did not get proper representation from

his appointed counsel. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of

the district court.

We hold that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Meggers

obstructed justice and failed to accept responsibility, given that he did not appear for

sentencing on May 6, 2003, and he violated additional pretrial release conditions.

See U.S.S.G. §§ 3E1.1, comment. (n.4) (conduct supporting obstruction of justice

enhancement ordinarily indicates defendant has not accepted responsibility), 3C1.1,

comment. (n.4(e)) (obstructing justice includes willfully failing to appear for judicial

proceeding); United States v. Nguyen, 339 F.3d 688, 690 (8th Cir. 2003) (standard

of review); United States v. Shinder, 8 F.3d 633, 635 (8th Cir. 1993) (defendant’s

presentencing flight was sufficient ground to both apply obstruction of justice

enhancement and deny acceptance of responsibility reduction). We decline to address

Meggers’s ineffective assistance claims, as they are more appropriately raised in a 28

U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding where a record can be fully developed. See United States

v. Clayton, 210 F.3d 841, 845 n.4 (8th Cir. 2000).

Following our independent review of the record, see Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________
§ 3.25-1 Fifth district. ( a ) The District Office is in Portsmouth, Va.
( b ) The Fifth Coast Guard District is comprised of: North Carolina; Virginia; District of Columbia; Maryland; Delaware; that part of Pennsylvania east of a line drawn along 78°55′ W. longitude south to 41°00′ N. latitude, thence west to 79°00′ W. longitude, and thence south to the Pennsylvania-Maryland boundary; that portion of New Jersey that lies south and west of a line drawn from the New Jersey shoreline at 40°18′ N. latitude (just south of the Shrewsbury River), thence westward to 40°18′ N. latitude, 74°30.5′ W. longitude, thence north-northwesterly to the junction of the New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania boundaries at Tristate; and the ocean area encompassed by a line bearing 122°T from the coastal end of the First and Fifth Districts' land boundary at the intersection of the New Jersey shoreline and 40°18′ N. latitude (just south of the Shrewsbury River) to the southernmost point in the First Coast Guard District (a point located at approximately 37° N. latitude, 67°13′ W. longitude); thence along a line bearing 219°T to the point of intersection with the ocean boundary between the Fifth and Seventh Coast Guard Districts, which is defined as a line bearing 122°T from the coastal end of the Fifth and Seventh Districts' land boundary at the shoreline at the North Carolina-South Carolina border, point located at approximately 30°55′ N. 73° W.; thence northwesterly along this line to the coast.
[CGFR 61-40, 26 FR 10347, Nov. 3, 1961, as amended by CGD 87-008, 52 FR 13084, Apr. 21, 1987; 52 FR 16480, May 5, 1987; CGD 87-008b, 52 FR 25217, July 6, 1987; CGD 96-016, 61 FR 21959, May 13, 1996]
Exhibit
3.3







CERTIFICATE
OF AMENDMENT




OF
THE




CERTIFICATE
OF INCORPORATION




OF




ACETO
CHEMICAL CO., INC.




Under section 805 of the
Business


Corporation
Law




The
undersigned, being the President and Secretary of ACETO CHEMICAL CO., INC., do
hereby certify and set forth:




(1)   The
name of the Corporation is ACETO CHEMICAL CO., INC. The name under which the
Corporation was formed is ACETO CHEMICAL CO. INC.




(2)   The
date the Certificate of Incorporation was filed by the Department of State is
the 13th day of June, 1947.




(3)   The
Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation, as amended, is amended pursuant
to section 801 of the Business Corporation Law to fix at 80,000 shares the
number of shares of previously designated First Series Preferred Stock pursuant
to authority vested in the Board of Directors by the Certificate of
Incorporation.




(4)   The
Certificate of Incorporation, as amended, is hereby amended as
follows:




“The
number of shares in the series designated First Series Preferred Stock is 80,000
shares of preferred stock, par value $2.50 per share.”




(5)   The
foregoing amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation was authorized by the
unanimous vote of the Board of Directors of Aceto Chemical Co., Inc. at a
meeting duly called and held on the 16th day of December, 1983.




IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this certificate has been subscribed this 7th day of February,
1984 by the undersigned, who affirm that the statements made herein are true
under the penalties of perjury.


/s/
      Seymour MannSeymour
      Mann, President/s/
      Arnold FrankelArnold
      Frankel, Secretary