alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32(a)

                                  Certification

            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

        (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,
                              United States Code)

In connection with the Annual Report of Long Island Physician Holdings
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Paul Kolker, President and Chairman of the Board 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 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 result of
operations of the Company.

/s/ Paul Kolker
---------------
Paul Kolker,
President, Chairman of the Board
November 17, 2003

This certification accompanies the above-described Report on Form 10-K 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.
§ 188.05-5 Specific application noted in text. ( a ) At the beginning of the various parts, subparts, and sections, a more specific application is generally given for the particular portion of the text involved. This application sets forth the types, sizes, or services or vessels to which the text pertains, and in many cases limits the application of the text to vessels contracted for before or after a specific date. As used in this subchapter, the term “vessels contracted for” includes not only the contracting for the construction of a vessel, but also the contracting for a material alteration to a vessel, the contracting for the conversion of a vessel to an oceanographic research vessel, and the changing of area of operation of a vessel if such change increases or modifies the general requirements for the vessel or increases the hazards to which it might be subjected.
[CGFR 67-83, 33 FR 1113, Jan. 27, 1968, as amended by CGD 77-081, 46 FR 56204, Nov. 16, 1981]
#### § 159.001-9 OMB Control Numbers assigned pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

(a) *Purpose.* This section collects and displays the control numbers assigned to information collection and recordkeeping requirements in this subchapter by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.*). The Coast Guard intends that this section comply with the requirements of 44 U.S.C. 3507(f) which requires that agencies display a current control number assigned by the Director of the OMB for each approved agency information collection requirement.

(b) *Display.*

| 46 CFR part or section where identified or described | Current OMB control No. |
| --- | --- |
| § 159.007-11.13 | 1625-0035 |
| § 160.002-5 | 1625-0035 |
| § 160.047-5 | 1625-0035 |
| § 160.048-5 | 1625-0035 |
| § 160.050-5 | 1625-0035 |
| § 160.052-7 | 1625-0035 |
| § 160.053-4 | 1625-0035 |
| § 160.055-4 | 1625-0035 |
| § 160.064-6 | 1625-0035 |
| §§ 161.001 through 161.010 | 1625-0035 |
| § 161.171-15 | 1625-0035 |
| § 161.171-23 | 1625-0035 |
| §§ 162.001 through 161.018 | 1625-0035 |
| § 162.041 | 1625-0035 |
| § 162.043 | 1625-0035 |
| § 164.012-13 | 1625-0035 |
| § 164.019-5 | 1625-0035 |
| § 164.019-7 | 1625-0035 |
| § 164.019-9 | 1625-0035 |
| § 164.019-13 | 1625-0035 |
| § 164.019-15 | 1625-0035 |
| § 164.023-15 | 1625-0035 |

[49 FR 38121, Sept. 27, 1984, as amended by CGD 86-057, 51 FR 35220, Oct. 2, 1986; CGD 84-068, 58 FR 29492, May 20, 1993; USCG-2004-18884, 69 FR 58350, Sept. 30, 2004]
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 22

- 10400 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Ruben Hernandez,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:08

- CR

- 65

- 1

Before **Higginbotham, Graves,** and **Ho,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Ruben Hernandez, federal prisoner # 36963

- 177, appeals the district court’s denial of a motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) . He argues that the court erred by relying on a guidelines policy statement and by ignoring e vidence of his postsentencing

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 23, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-10400 Document: 00516482930 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/23/2022No. 22

- 10400

2 rehabilitation. Our review of the district court’s ruling is for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss , 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). Hernandez also moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this appeal, which motion is **GRANTED**

. In deciding a prisoner’s own motion for compassionate release, district court s are bound only by § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United Stat es v. Shkambi , 993 F.3d 388, 393 (5th Cir. 2021). Hernandez fails to show that the district court disregarded this authority , which it expressly acknowledged in its order. Moreover, even if the district court improperly limit ed its inquiry into whether H ernandez presented extraordinary and compelling reasons for his request, its separate determination that the § 3553(a) factors weighed against a reduced sentence suffices to support its decision

. See Ward v. United States, 11 F.4th 354, 360

- 62 (5th Cir. 2021) ; Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693

- 94

. C ontrary to Hernandez’s assertions, the district court’s ruling reflects that the court considered his arguments but concluded n onet heless that the § 3553(a) factors weighed against granting relief

. Hernand ez fails to demonstrate that the court abused its discretion in reaching this conclusion, and his mere disagreement with it “is not a sufficient ground for reversal.” Chambliss , 948 F.3d at 694. We are also not persuaded by his attempt to show an abuse o f discretion based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pepper v. United States , 562 U.S. 476 (2011)

. Accordingly, the district court’s ruling is **AFFIRM ED.**  Case: 22-10400 Document: 00516482930 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/23/2022
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 23

- 00917

- CV

Peter T. CISNEROS

, Appellant

v.

CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY as Subrogee of J. Mills Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Visiting Angels, Appellee

From the 451st Judicial District Court

, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 22

- 380

Honorable Kirsten Cohoon , Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. It is ORDERED that no costs shall be assessed against appellant in relation to this appeal because he qualifies as indigent under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.

SIGNED May 8, 2024.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez

, Chief Justice
<PAGE>

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                     TO THE
                        LORAL SPACE & COMMUNICATION LTD.
                             2000 STOCK OPTION PLAN
                            (AS AMENDED AND RESTATED)

                  WHEREAS, Loral Space & Communications Ltd. (the "Company"),
currently maintains and sponsors the Loral Space & Communications Ltd. 2000
Stock Option Plan (As Amended and Restated) (the "Plan"); and

                  WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company (the "Board")
has the power to amend the Plan pursuant to Section 9(b) of the Plan and now
wishes to do so.

                  NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

                  1.       By adding new subsection (h) to Section 5 of the Plan
to read as follows:

                  (h)      Either the Board of Directors or the Committee, in
                  its discretion, may conduct exchange offers with respect to
                  outstanding Options with a purchase price greater than the
                  Fair Market Value on the date of the exchange offer; provided,
                  that any such exchange offer does not result in a "repricing"
                  under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

                  2.       Except as modified by this Amendment No. 1, all of
the terms and conditions of the Plan shall remain valid and in full force and
effect.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer
of the Company, has executed this instrument as of the 17th day of December,
2002, on behalf of the Board.

                                By: /s/ Avi Katz
                                    ------------------
                                    Name:  Avi Katz
                                    Title: Vice President, General
                                           Counsel and Secretary
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the annual report on Form 10-KSB of Biofield Corp. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the  "Covered  Report"),  I, Michael J. Antonoplos, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that:  The Covered Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  The information contained in the Covered Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this certificate as of this 14th day of April 2008.  /s/ Michael J. Antonoplos Michael J. Antonoplos Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT


To the Board of Directors
PICK Communications Corp.

We hereby consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 of PICK Communications Corp. of our report dated June 14, 2000 related
to the consolidated balance sheet of PICK Communications Corp. and Subsidiaries
as of December 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' deficiency, and cash flows for the years ended
December 31, 1999 and 1998, which report appears in the December 31, 1999 annual
report on Form 10-K PICK Communications Corp.


GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP
New York, New York


July 12, 2000
# C_2011282EN.01000301.xml

| 24.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/3

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de A Coruña (Spain) lodged on 28 June 2011 — Germán Rodríguez Cachafeiro and Maria Reyes Martínez-Reboredo Varela-Villamayor v Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España S.A.

(Case C-321/11)

2011/C 282/04

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil de A Coruña

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Germán Rodríguez Cachafeiro and Maria Reyes Martínez-Reboredo Varela-Villamayor

Applicants:

Defendant: Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España S.A.

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

May the definition of ‘denied boarding’ contained in Article 2(j), in conjunction with Article 3(2) and 4(3), of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, (1) be regarded as including a situation in which an airline refuses to allow boarding because the first flight included in the ticket is subject to a delay ascribable to the airline and the latter erroneously expects the passengers not to arrive in time to catch the second flight, and so allows their seats to be taken by other passengers?

1

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004

1

establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (Text with EEA relevance) — Commission Statement; OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.

---
# C_2012025EN.01006802.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/68

---

Action brought on 18 October 2011 — ZZ v ECB

(Case F-106/11)

(2012/C 25/131)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision of the Deputy Director General of the Directorate General Human Resources, Budget and Organisation imposing on the Appellant a written reprimand as disciplinary measure.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Deputy Director General of DG-H of 15 April 2011, imposing on the Appellant a written reprimand as disciplinary measure and, if necessary, of the decision of 4 August 2011 rejecting the special appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Deputy Director General of DG-H of 15 April 2011, imposing on the Appellant a written reprimand as disciplinary measure and, if necessary, of the decision of 4 August 2011 rejecting the special appeal;

| — | order the compensation of the Appellant's moral prejudice evaluated at EUR 10 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the compensation of the Appellant's moral prejudice evaluated at EUR 10 000;

| — | order the ECB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the ECB to pay the costs.

---
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Alex Ferries, Chief Financial Officer of UAGH, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:  (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78 o(d)); 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: May 17, 2010  /s/ Alex Ferries Alex Ferries Chief Financial Officer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been furnished to UAGH, Inc. and will be retained by UAGH, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, Viral and Cellular Responses to Severe Influenza Infection.                    

*Date:*                         May 8, 2007.                    

*Time:*                         1 p.m. to 4 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 6700, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Mini Paulose-Murphy, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Program, DEA/NIAID/NIH/DHHS, Room 3127, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 301-451-2640,                         *murphym@niaid.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: April 10, 2007.

Jennifer Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-1901  Filed 4-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### § 168.15-40 Lighting.

All quarters, including washrooms, toilet rooms, and hospital spaces, must be adequately lighted.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 39935/39965

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JOSEPH DARRELLD MAESTAS, aka 

JOSEPH DARRELL MAESTAS; JOSEPH 

DARRYL MAESTAS; JOSEPH DARRELD 

MAESTAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 477

Filed: May 2, 2013

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeals from the District Courts of the Fourth and Third Judicial Districts, State 

of Idaho, Ada and Canyon Counties. Hon. Ronald J. Wilper, District Judge; Hon. 

Molly J. Huskey, District Judge.

Orders denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motions for reduction of 

sentences, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sarah E. Tompkins, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

In docket number 39935, Joseph Darrelld Maestas, aka Joseph Darrell Maestas, Joseph 

Darryl Maestas, Joseph Darreld Maestas, pled guilty to burglary, Idaho Code § 18-1401, and 

grand theft, I.C. §§ 18-2403(1), 18-2407(1)(b). The district court sentenced Maestas to a 

concurrent, unified term of ten years, with two years determinate, for each conviction. In docket 

number 39965, Maestas pled guilty to burglary. I.C. § 18-1401. The district court sentenced

Maestas to a unified term of ten years, with two years determinate, to run concurrently with 
2

Maestas’s sentences in docket number 39935. Maestas filed Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motions in 

both cases seeking a reduction of his sentences. The district court denied the motions. Maestas 

appealed in both cases, and the two cases have been consolidated on appeal.

A motion for reduction of sentence under Rule 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, 

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 

23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In 

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of 

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the 

motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the 

record, including the new information submitted with Maestas’s Rule 35 motions, we conclude 

no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district courts’ orders denying Maestas’s

Rule 35 motions are affirmed.
EXHIBIT 4.2


                     EXCERPTS FROM ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                                  SECURAC CORP.
         (AS IN EFFECT THROUGH AMENDMENTS FILED AS OF JANUARY 14, 2004)


"FOURTH. The Corporation shall be authorized to issue 200,000,000 shares of
capital stock, all of which shares shall be shares of Common Stock, $0.01 par
value ("Common Stock"). The Corporation from time to time for such consideration
as may be fixed by the Board of Directors may issue said common shares."


"NINTH. Section 78.265 of the Nevada Revised Statutes shall not apply to the
Corporation or its shareholders, it being the intent that the shareholders of
the Corporation not be entitled by virtue of that statute to preemptive rights
to acquire shares of the Corporation or securities exercisable for or
convertible into shares of the Corporation."
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 Thinkpath, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Declan A. French,
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.



     May 17, 2004                      By: /s/ Declan A. French
                                           Name: Declan A. French
                                           Title: Chief Executive Officer
§ 168.15-50 Ventilation. ( a ) All quarters must be adequately ventilated in a manner suitable to the purpose of the space and route of the vessel.
( b ) When mechanical ventilation is provided for sleeping rooms, washrooms, toilet rooms, hospital spaces, and messrooms, these spaces must be supplied with fresh air equal to at least 10 times the volume of the room each hour.
# C_2013189EN.01002902.xml

| 29.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/29

---

Order of the General Court of 6 May 2013 — Sigla v OHIM (VIPS CLUB)

(Case T-673/11) (1)

1

2013/C 189/60

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.

1

---