alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

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

 

The undersigned herebycertifies in his capacity as CEO of Analysts International Corporation (“TheCompany”) that the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the periodended September 27, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained insuch report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financialcondition of the Company at the end of such period and the results ofoperations of the Company for such period.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to AnalystsInternational and will be retained by Analysts International and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| Dated:   November 11, 2003 | By:    | /s/ Michael J. LaVelle                |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                            |   | Michael J. LaVelle                    |
|                            |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
EXHIBIT 23.2



                         Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference in  the  Registration  Statement
(Form S-8 No.  333-1912)  pertaining  to the 1994 Stock  Option  Plan of TresCom
International,  Inc.  of our  report  dated  May 12,  1994 with  respect  to the
consolidated  statements of operations  and cash flows of The St. Thomas and San
Juan  Telephone  Company,  Inc.,  in the Annual  Report  (Form  10-K) of TresCom
International, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1996.



                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

San Juan, Puerto Rico
March 28, 1997
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

ESLI JOSEPH , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee.

No. 4D 2 3

- 609

[ May 11, 2023 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.8 0 0 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seven teenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Elizabeth Anne Scherer , Judge; L.T. Case No. 06

- 016527

- CF

- 10A

.
Esli Joseph, Raiford , pro se

.

No appearance for appellee

.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

D AMOORGIAN , G ERBER and C ONNER , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# Comments on: 2018-2069: In Re FCA US LLC
#### § 302-8.107 May I change from storage at personal expense to extended storage at Government expense?

Yes, you may change from storage at personal expense to extended storage at Government expense, if authorized by your agency.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 1962

SHAWNTA D. ROYSTER , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. LOUIS DEJOY, Postmaster General; MARY KEARNEY, Postmaster; CARL W. STARL IP ER, Supervisor , Defendants

– Appellees , and JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, former Attorney General; STEPHEN SCHENNING, Acting U.S. Attorney; MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Former Postmaster General , Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. ( 1:17

- cv
- 02495

- GLR )

Submitted : January 15, 2021 Decided: January 26, 2021

Before NIEMEYER , AGEE, and RICHA RDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Shawnta D. Royster , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Shawnta D. Royster appeals the district court’s order dismissing her employment discrimination complaint . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Royster v. DeJoy , No. 1: 17

- cv
- 02495

- GLR ( D. Md. Sept. 2, 2020) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
AMP Incorporated                                            May 12, 1997
470 Friendship Road
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17111

Re: Form 10-Q Report for the quarter ended March 31, 1997.

Gentlemen:

This letter is written to meet the requirements of Regulation S-K calling for a
letter from a registrant's independent accountants whenever there has been a
change in accounting principle or practice.

We have been informed that, as of January 1, 1997, the Company changed its
inventory costing methodology to include manufacturing engineering costs.
Previously these costs were expensed by the Company as they were incurred. In
addition, certain capacity assumptions used to determine inventory standard cost
were modified. According to the management of the Company, these changes were
made to more accurately state the value of inventory and to more properly
reflect the Company's objectives for plant and equipment utilization.

A complete coordinated set of financial and reporting standards for determining
the preferability of accounting principles among acceptable alternative
principles has not been established by the accounting profession. Thus, we
cannot make an objective determination of whether the change in accounting
described in the preceding paragraph is to a preferable method. However, we have
reviewed the pertinent factors, including those related to financial reporting,
in this particular case on a subjective basis, and our opinion stated below is
based on our determination made in this manner.

We are of the opinion that the Company's change in method of accounting is to an
acceptable alternative method of accounting, which, based upon the reasons
stated for the change and our discussions with you, is also preferable under the
circumstances in this particular case. In arriving at this opinion, we have
relied on the business judgment and business planning of your management.

We have not audited the application of this change to the financial statements
of any period subsequent to December 31, 1996. Further, we have not examined and
do not express any opinion with respect to your financial statements for the
three months ended March 31, 1997.

Very truly yours,

    /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
#### § 302-9.501 How many POVs will be eligible for storage and for how long will my agency authorize the storage?

You may be authorized to store not more than one POV at any given time during the period of the TCS assignment, subject to this subpart. A POV may be stored for the duration of the TCS.
§ 50-203.4 Motions. ( a ) All motions except those made at the hearing shall be filed in writing with the Chief administrative law judge, Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., and shall be included in the record. Such motions shall state briefly the order or relief applied for and the grounds for such motion. The moving party shall file an original and two copies of all such motions. All motions made at the hearing shall be stated orally and included in the stenographic report of the hearing.
( b ) The administrative law judge designated to conduct the hearing may in his discretion reserve his ruling upon any question or motion.
[11 FR 14493, Dec. 18, 1946. Redesignated at 24 FR 10952, Dec. 30, 1959, as amended at 61 FR 19987, May 3, 1996]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-62340-CIV-SINGHAL

DAPHNE EDWARDS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FISERV, INC., a foreign corporation,

Defendant.

________________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE has come before the Court upon a sua sponte examination of the 

record. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires service of summons and complaint 

to be perfected upon defendants within 90 days after the filing of the complaint. Plaintiff

filed this action on December 13, 2022, and to date, there is no indication in the court file 

that Defendant has been served with the summons and Complaint. It is therefore

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that on or before March 28, 2023, Plaintiff shall perfect 

service upon the Defendants or show cause why this action should not be dismissed for 

failure to perfect service of process. Failure to file proof of service or show good cause by 

March 28, 2023, will result in a dismissal without prejudice and without further notice.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 23rd day of March 

2023.

Copy furnished counsel via CM/ECF

Case 0:22-cv-62340-AHS Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2023 Page 1 of 1
# Comments on: 2020-1472: Ethanol Boosting Systems, LLC v. Ford Motor Company
No. 10-10985.

#### Williams *v.*Knowlin, Warden.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 60-20.6 Other fringe benefits. ( a ) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a contractor to discriminate on the basis of sex with regard to fringe benefits.
( b ) As used herein, the term “fringe benefits” includes, but is not limited to, medical, hospital, accident, life insurance, and retirement benefits; profit-sharing and bonus plans; leave; and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.
( c ) The greater cost of providing a fringe benefit to members of one sex is not a defense to a contractor's failure to provide benefits equally to members of both sexes.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2023 ND 202

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v. Manuel Gonzales, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20230129

Appeal from the District Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable James S. Hill , Judge.

REVERSED

. Opinion of the Court by Crothers , Justice.

Chase R. Lingle, Assistant State’s Attorney, Mandan, ND
, for plaintiff and appellee.

Samuel A. Gereszek, Grand Forks, ND

, for defendant and appellant.1 State v. Gonzales No. 20230129

Crothers, Justice

. [¶1] Manuel Gonzales appeals a district court order and amended judgment claiming the restitution ordered by the district court was not directly related to the crime to which he pleaded guilty. We reverse.

[¶2] Gonzales pleaded guilty to unlawful use of personal identifying information. The district court ordered Gonzales to make restitution of $ 556.00 for the value of property stolen from the victim’s vehicle
, which includ ed $500.00 cash in a wallet , $45.00 to replace the wallet, and $11.00 to replace an ATM card and driver's license.

[¶3] “When reviewing a restitution order, we look to whether the district court acted within the limits set by statute, which is a standard similar to our abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Harstad , 2020 ND 151, ¶ 7, 945 N.W.2d 265

. “A district court abuses its discretion if it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner, if its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasonable determination, or if it misinterprets or misapplies the law. ” Id.

[¶4] “In determining the amount of restitution , the court shall take into account the reasonable damages sustained by the victim or victims of the criminal offense, which damages are limited to those directly related to the criminal offense and expenses actually sustained as a direct result of the defendant ’ s criminal action. ” N.D.C.C. § 12.1

- 32

- 08(4); see State v. Pippin , 496 N.W.2d 50, 53 (N.D. 1993) ( restitution requires “an immediate and intimate causal connection between the criminal conduct and the damages or expenses for which restitution is ordered” ); State v. Carson , 2017 ND 196, ¶ 6 , 900 N.W.2d 41 ( restitution damages are limited to damages “directly related to the criminal offense and expenses actually incurred as a direct result of the defendant’s criminal action”); Harstad , 2022 ND 106, ¶ 1 3 ( there is no “immediate causal connection between unrecovered” property from a car and a
conviction of possession of a stolen vehicle)

.2

[¶5] Here, the district court misapplied the law and abused its discretion by ordering restitution for the victim’s loss from theft when Gonzales pleaded guilty to unauthorized use of personal identifying information

. No evidence at the restitution hearing supported, and n o part of restitution ordered by the

court , was directly related to Gonzales’ conviction for unauthorized use of personal identifying information. We reverse the order and amended judgment

.
[¶6] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 32

                            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 The Allied Defense Group, Inc.
(formerly Allied Research Corporation) ("Allied") on Form 10-Q for the period
ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, the undersigned, John G. Meyer, Jr., as Chief
Executive Officer and Charles A. Hasper as Chief Financial Officer of Allied,
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 consolidated financial condition and
               result of operations of Allied.





   /s/ Charles A. Hasper                              /s/ John G. Meyer, Jr.
-----------------------------------                ----------------------------
Charles A. Hasper                                  John G. Meyer, Jr.
Chief Financial Officer                            Chief Executive Officer
August 13, 2003                                    August 13, 2003


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to The Allied Defense Group, Inc. and will be retained by The Allied
Defense Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.

                                       27
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 21-40132 

Summary Calendar 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Eduardo De Jesus Zavala-Maravilla, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 7:20-CR-1795-2 

Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Eduardo De 

Jesus Zavala-Maravilla has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief 

in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United 

States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Zavala-Maravilla has not filed 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

October 8, 2021 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 21-40132 Document: 00516049050 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/08/2021
No. 21-40132 

2 

a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of 

the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the 

appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, 

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused 

from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

Case: 21-40132 Document: 00516049050 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/08/2021
# Comments on: 2018-1714: In Re Lilleness
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Patrick Evans, Chief Executive Officer of Mountain Province Diamonds Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

1.

the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009 (the Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| | By:    | /s/ Patrick Evans      
| | ------ | -----------------------
| |        |                        
| |        |                        
| | Name:  | Patrick Evans          
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer
| | Date:  | June 26, 2009          

This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Companys Annual Report on Form 20-F. A signed original of this statement 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.

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form 20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

---
#### § 102-73.20 Are Federal agencies required to give priority consideration to space in buildings under the custody and control of the United States Postal Service in fulfilling Federal agency space needs?

Yes, after considering the availability of GSA-controlled space and determining that no such space is available to meet its needs, Federal agencies must extend priority consideration to available space in buildings under the custody and control of the United States Postal Service (USPS) in fulfilling Federal agency space needs, as specified in the “Agreement Between General Services Administration and the United States Postal Service Covering Real and Personal Property Relationships and Associated Services,” dated July 1985.
§ 302-9.170 Under what specific conditions may my agency authorize transportation of a POV to my post of duty subsequent to the time of my assignment to that post? Your agency may authorize transportation of a POV to your post of duty subsequent to the time of your assignment to that post when: ( a ) You do not have a POV at your post of duty;
( b ) You have not previously been authorized to transport a POV to that post of duty;
( c ) You have not previously transported a POV outside CONUS during your assignment to that post of duty;
( d ) Your agency has determined in accordance with § 302-9.604 that it is in the interest of the Government for you to have use of your POV at the post of duty; and
( e ) You signed a service agreement at the time you were transferred in the interest of the Government, or assigned if you were a new appointee or student trainee, to your post of duty; and
( f ) You meet any specific conditions your agency has established.
[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001, as amended by FTR Amdt. 2011-01, 76 FR 18342, Apr. 1, 2011; FTR Amdt. 2011-06, 76 FR 71890, Nov. 21, 2011]
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CUSTOMPLAY, LLC,

Appellant

v.

AMAZON.COM, INC.,

Appellee

ANDREW HIRSHFELD, PERFORMING THE 

FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF THE UNDER 

SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR 

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF 

THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK 

OFFICE,

Intervenor

______________________ 

2020-2207

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2018-

01496.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

JOHN C. CAREY, Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya, LLP, 

Miami, FL, argued for appellant. Also represented by 

Case: 20-2207 Document: 66 Page: 1 Filed: 02/15/2022
NICHOLAS J. DOYLE. 

 COLIN B. HEIDEMAN, Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, 

LLP, Seattle, WA, argued for appellee. Also represented 

by CHRISTIE R.W. MATTHAEI; JOSEPH R. RE, Irvine, CA.

 MCKAYE LEA NEUMEISTER, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, 

DC, argued for intervenor. Also represented by BRIAN M.

BOYNTON, DANIEL TENNY; KAKOLI CAPRIHAN, MAI-TRANG 

DUC DANG, THOMAS W. KRAUSE, ROBERT J. MCMANUS,

FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED, Office of the Solicitor, 

United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, 

VA. 

 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, DYK, and REYNA, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

February 15, 2022 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 20-2207 Document: 66 Page: 2 Filed: 02/15/2022