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 Defense Industries
International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June
30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Joseph Postbinder, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.

/S/ Joseph Postbinder*
-----------------------
Joseph Postbinder
Chief Executive Officer

August 12, 2004

* The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
EXHIBIT 4.1(e)


                         Summary of Lease Agreement

The leased premises are at Herzeliya Business Park, Building D "Block
6518/367", 2 Maskit St. 46733, Herzeliya Pituach, Israel.

The lease agreement was signed on July 16, 1998 between VocalTec
Communications Ltd. and Gemel Tsu'a Lehashka'ot Ltd. the lessor and owner
of the leased premises.

Commencement Date of the lease is July 20, 1998, and the lease expires on
December 31, 2004.

The total area leased by VocalTec is 5,573 squared meters.

The price per square meter per month is US $17.25 (payable in New Israeli
Shekels) for the office areas, with the exception of the offices on the
ground floor, which are priced at US $15 per meter-squared per month. The
warehouse area is leased at US $11.5 per meter-squared per month. Parking
fees are US $ 125 per month, per parking space, for 180 spaces and
prevailing parking fees for up to 35 additional spaces. Management fees for
the warehouse areas are US $2.5 per month per meter-squared. For the office
areas management fees are paid on a cost-plus basis, and pro-rated in
accordance with percentage of VocalTec's leased areas out of the total
areas leased in the building.

The current monthly lease is US $33,000, with an additional amount of US
$17,250 expected starting January 1, 2002 for additional space. The lease
amounts are paid in quarterly installments.

VocalTec has undertaken to compensate and indemnify the lessor in case of
any damage or expense they might incur as a result of the lease. VocalTec
is require to insure the leased premises. VocalTec is required to submit
the lessor a bank guarantee and promissory note against its obligations
pursuant to the lease. VocalTec is obligated to pay the lessor, in
additional to any other amounts due, liquidated damages equal to six times
the last monthly fees, for any breach of contract causing lessor to
terminate the lease agreement. VocalTec is obligated to pay interest for
fees not paid when due.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from financial
statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1996 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,583
<SECURITIES>                                     1,420
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,323
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,867
<INVENTORY>                                      1,173
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,617
<PP&E>                                           9,587
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,055
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,403
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,611
<BONDS>                                            323
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,489
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,403
<SALES>                                         40,444
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,444
<CGS>                                           26,035
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,035
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,698
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,112    
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 329
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,960)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,960)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,950)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.97)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.97)
        

</TABLE>
#### § 630.630 Debarment.

*Debarment* means an action taken by a Federal agency to prohibit a recipient from participating in Federal Government procurement contracts and covered nonprocurement transactions. A recipient so prohibited is debarred, in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation for procurement contracts (48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4) and the common rule, Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement), that implements Executive Order 12549 and Executive Order 12689.
Exhibit 32.02

IDT CORPORATION

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 IDT Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for fiscal 2011 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Bill Pereira, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: October 11, 2011



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|                                    
|/s/ Bill Pereira                    
|Bill Pereira Chief Financial Officer

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 IDT Corporation and will be retained by IDT Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 4:14-cr-20529-TGB-MJH ECF No. 3, PageID.5 Filed 06/06/14 Page 1 of 1
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

TAFT R. LEWIS, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-13146 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

CITY OF ROMULUS et al., 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF #74) 

AND (2) DENYING MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT 

 JUDGMENT (ECF ## 61, 62, 63, 64) 

On July 14, 2015, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford issued a Report 

and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court deny four motions 

for default judgment filed by Plaintiff Taft R. Lewis (“Lewis”). (See ECF #74.) 

The R&R stated that the parties could object to and seek review of the 

recommendation within fourteen days. (See id. at 3-4, Pg. ID 458-459.) 

On August 6, 2015, the Court entered an Order granting Lewis additional 

time to file objections to the R&R. (See ECF #78.) The Court ordered Lewis to 

file his objections, if any, by no later than August 28, 2015. (See id. at 2, Pg. ID 

469.) Lewis never filed any objections to the R&R. 

The failure to file objections to the R&R waives any further right to appeal. 

See Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); 

2:14-cv-13146-MFL-EAS Doc # 83 Filed 09/10/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 515
2 

Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). 

Likewise, the failure to object to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R releases the Court 

from its duty to independently review the matter. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 

140, 149 (1985). The Court has nevertheless reviewed the R&R and agrees with 

the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's July 14, 

2015, Report and Recommendation (ECF #74) is ADOPTED as the Opinion of 

this Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, for the reasons stated in the R&R, that 

Lewis’s motions for default judgment (ECF ## 61, 62, 63, and 64) are DENIED. 

       s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: September 10, 2015 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on September 10, 2015, by electronic means 

and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Teresa McGovern 

 in the absence of Holly A. Monda 

Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

2:14-cv-13146-MFL-EAS Doc # 83 Filed 09/10/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 516
Exhibit 32.2  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 FFD Financial Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert R. Gerber, the Senior Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial 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:  (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.


|                                                                                                 | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|/s/ Robert R. Gerber                                                                             | 
|Robert R. Gerber
Senior Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
September 28, 2010 |
§ 91.34 Information requirements. Each recipient shall: ( a ) Keep records in a form and containing information which HHS determines may be necessary to ascertain whether the recipient is complying with the Act and these regulations.
( b ) Provide to HHS, upon request, information and reports which HHS determines are necessary to ascertain whether the recipient is complying with the Act and these regulations.
( c ) Permit reasonable access by HHS to the books, records, accounts, and other recipient facilities and sources of information to the extent HHS determines is necessary to ascertain whether the recipient is complying with the Act and these regulations.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

REX ALLEN UMNEY, 

 Plaintiff, Civil Action No.: 14-13328 

 Honorable Matthew F. Leitman 

v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford 

 

COMMUNITY FINANCIAL 

MEMBERS FEDERAL CREDIT 

UNION, 

 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________/ 

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO 

DEFENDANTS’ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES [17] 

 On March 18, 2015, plaintiff Rex Umney filed a response to 

Defendant’s affirmative defenses to his complaint. [17]. However, under 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a response to an answer is “allowed” 

only “if the court orders one.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(7). The Court did not 

order Umney to respond to Defendant’s affirmative defenses, so his 

response [17] is hereby STRICKEN. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 19, 2015 s/Elizabeth A. Stafford 

Detroit, Michigan ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

2:14-cv-13328-MFL-EAS Doc # 19 Filed 03/19/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 76
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served 

upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF 

System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses 

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on March 19, 2015. 

 s/Marlena Williams 

 MARLENA WILLIAMS 

 Case Manager 

2:14-cv-13328-MFL-EAS Doc # 19 Filed 03/19/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 77
Case 2:14-mj-30333-DUTY ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 07/07/14 Page 1 of 23
Case 2:14-mj-30333-DUTY ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 07/07/14 Page 2 of 23
Case 2:14-mj-30333-DUTY ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 07/07/14 Page 3 of 23
Case 2:14-mj-30333-DUTY ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 07/07/14 Page 4 of 23
Case 2:14-mj-30333-DUTY ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 07/07/14 Page 5 of 23
Case 2:14-mj-30333-DUTY ECF No. 1, PageID.6 Filed 07/07/14 Page 6 of 23
Case 2:14-mj-30333-DUTY ECF No. 1, PageID.7 Filed 07/07/14 Page 7 of 23
Case 2:14-mj-30333-DUTY ECF No. 1, PageID.8 Filed 07/07/14 Page 8 of 23
Case 2:14-mj-30333-DUTY ECF No. 1, PageID.9 Filed 07/07/14 Page 9 of 23
Case 2:14-mj-30333-DUTY ECF No. 1, PageID.10 Filed 07/07/14 Page 10 of 23
Case 2:14-mj-30333-DUTY ECF No. 1, PageID.11 Filed 07/07/14 Page 11 of 23
Case 2:14-mj-30333-DUTY ECF No. 1, PageID.12 Filed 07/07/14 Page 12 of 23
Case 2:14-mj-30333-DUTY ECF No. 1, PageID.13 Filed 07/07/14 Page 13 of 23
Case 2:14-mj-30333-DUTY ECF No. 1, PageID.14 Filed 07/07/14 Page 14 of 23
Case 2:14-mj-30333-DUTY ECF No. 1, PageID.15 Filed 07/07/14 Page 15 of 23
Case 2:14-mj-30333-DUTY ECF No. 1, PageID.16 Filed 07/07/14 Page 16 of 23
Case 2:14-mj-30333-DUTY ECF No. 1, PageID.17 Filed 07/07/14 Page 17 of 23
Case 2:14-mj-30333-DUTY ECF No. 1, PageID.18 Filed 07/07/14 Page 18 of 23
Case 2:14-mj-30333-DUTY ECF No. 1, PageID.19 Filed 07/07/14 Page 19 of 23
Case 2:14-mj-30333-DUTY ECF No. 1, PageID.20 Filed 07/07/14 Page 20 of 23
Case 2:14-mj-30333-DUTY ECF No. 1, PageID.21 Filed 07/07/14 Page 21 of 23
Case 2:14-mj-30333-DUTY ECF No. 1, PageID.22 Filed 07/07/14 Page 22 of 23
Case 2:14-mj-30333-DUTY ECF No. 1, PageID.23 Filed 07/07/14 Page 23 of 23
Case 2:14-cr-20383-NGE-RSW ECF No. 60, PageID.110 Filed 08/05/14 Page 1 of 1
§ 75.217 Special provisions for awards to Federal agencies. ( a ) In order for an HHS awarding agency to make a Federal award to a Federal agency, the HHS awarding agency must have statutory authority that makes such Federal agency explicitly eligible for a Federal award.
( b ) All provisions of this part and other HHS regulations apply to Federal entities receiving Federal awards, except for the following: ( 1 ) Except for grants for research, any program income earned by a Federal institution must be used under the deduction alternative. Any program income earned after the end of grant support should be returned to the United States Treasury.
( 2 ) No salary or fringe benefit payments may be made from HHS awarding agency grant funds to support career, career-conditional, or other Federal employees (civilian or uniformed services) without permanent appointments at a Federal institution receiving a grant. While the level of effort required for the project must be allowed by the recipient as part of each individual's official duties, salary costs associated with an individual participating in an official capacity as a Federal employee under a grant to that Federal institution are not allowable costs under an HHS awarding agency grant.
( 3 ) Federal agencies may not be reimbursed for indirect costs under Federal awards.
[79 FR 75889, Dec. 19, 2014. Redesignated at 81 FR 3015, Jan. 20, 2016]
# C_2008078EN.01001501.xml

| 29.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/15

---

Corrigendum to the Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Council Directive 89/686/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to personal protective equipment

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 63 of 8 March 2008
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 63 of 8 March 2008

(2008/C 78/10)

On page 52, against the entry CEN EN 795:1996:

for:

| ‘CEN | EN 795:1996
  Protection against falls from a height — Anchor devices — Requirements and testing | 12.2.2000 | — | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| EN 795:1996/A1:2000 | 24.1.2001 | Note 3 | Date expired
  (30.4.2001)’ |

‘CEN

EN 795:1996

Protection against falls from a height — Anchor devices — Requirements and testing

12.2.2000

—

EN 795:1996/A1:2000

24.1.2001

Note 3

Date expired

(30.4.2001)’

read:

| ‘CEN | EN 795:1996
  Protection against falls from a height — Anchor devices — Requirements and testing

  Warning: This publication does not concern the equipment described in classes A (structural anchors), C (anchor devices employing horizontal flexible lines) and D (anchor devices employing horizontal rigid anchor rails) referred to in paragraphs 3.13.1, 3.13.3, 3.13.4, 4.3.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.4, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.4, 5.2.5, 5.3.2 (in respect of class A1), 5.3.3, 5.3.4, 5.3.5, 6 (in respect of classes A, C and D), Annex A (paragraphs A.2, A.3, A.5 and A.6), Annex B, and Annex ZA (in respect of classes A, C and D), in respect of which there shall be no presumption of conformity with the provisions of Directive 89/686/EEC | 12.2.2000 | — | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| EN 795:1996/A1:2000 | 24.1.2001 | Note 3 | Date expired
  (30.4.2001)’ |

‘CEN

EN 795:1996

Protection against falls from a height — Anchor devices — Requirements and testing

Warning: This publication does not concern the equipment described in classes A (structural anchors), C (anchor devices employing horizontal flexible lines) and D (anchor devices employing horizontal rigid anchor rails) referred to in paragraphs 3.13.1, 3.13.3, 3.13.4, 4.3.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.4, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.4, 5.2.5, 5.3.2 (in respect of class A1), 5.3.3, 5.3.4, 5.3.5, 6 (in respect of classes A, C and D), Annex A (paragraphs A.2, A.3, A.5 and A.6), Annex B, and Annex ZA (in respect of classes A, C and D), in respect of which there shall be no presumption of conformity with the provisions of Directive 89/686/EEC

12.2.2000

—

EN 795:1996/A1:2000

24.1.2001

Note 3

Date expired

(30.4.2001)’

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

VANESSA CASTELNERO,

Parent and Next Friend of B.P.M., a minor

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:14-cv-13168

Honorable Gershwin A. Drain

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. 

_________________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (#15)

DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (#13) AND

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (#11)

This matter is before the court on the parties’ Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment as

to Plaintiff Vanessa Castelnero’s, parent and next friend of B.P.M. (a minor), claim for judicial

review of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application, on behalf of

her son B.P.M. for disability insurance benefits. This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge

Patricia T. Morris on August 18, 2014, who issued a Report and Recommendation on June 16,

2015, recommending that the Court deny the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, grant

the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and that the case be remanded to the

Commissioner for further proceedings under sentence four or 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Neither party

has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and the time for

filing objections has expired. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

1

2:14-cv-13168-GAD-PTM Doc # 16 Filed 07/22/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 639
Upon review of the parties’ briefing and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge reached the correct conclusion. 

Therefore, the Court hereby ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Morris’s June 16, 2015

Report and Recommendation [#15] as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. 

Defendant’s Motion for Summary [#13] is DENIED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Motion

[#11] is GRANTED. 

This matter is remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to sentence

four of 42 U.S.C § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with Magistrate Judge Morris’s

Report and Recommendation.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2015

/s/Gershwin A Drain

GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2

2:14-cv-13168-GAD-PTM Doc # 16 Filed 07/22/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 640
#### Hallgarten v. Eckert.

*Trial—practice at—submission to jury*— *Exception—what sufficient.*

In an action upon a promissory note, the defense was that it was made for the accommodation of the payee upon a certain agreement, and was contrary to that agreement sold to plaintiff at a usurious rate. At the trial a witness testified that he thought the rate was 34 per cent per annum, and that when plaintiff was present he was told the rate, and that he thought it was 34 per cent. The plaintiff asked the court to direct a verdict for plain*682tiff, which was done, and defendant excepted. *Meld,*that the direction was error, and defendant’s exception was sufficient to raise the question and preserve defendant’s rights. *Catlin*v. *Gunter,*11 N. Y. 368; *Stone*v. *Flower,*47 id. 566.

Appeal by defendants from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, entered upon a verdict directed by the court.

The action was brought' by Lazarus Haljgarten and others, against William Eckert and others, upon a promissory note. The case upon a previous appeal from an order, is reported, 3 N. Y. Sup. 102.

*Jacob A. Gross*and *Abel Crook,*for appellants.

*John K. Porter*and *Lewis Saunders,*for respondents.

Davis, P. J.

• The head-note states the only points passed upon in the opinion. Babbett, J., dissented.

*Judgment reversed and new trial ordered.*