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





Certification
      Pursuant to


Exchange
      Act Rule 15d-14(b) and


18
      U.S.C.
      Section 1350





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Astrata Group Incorporated
      (the ”Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending August 31, 2006, as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Martin Euler, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant
      to Exchange Act Rule 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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





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 Astrata Group Incorporated and will be
      retained by Astrata Group Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.








Dated:
      October 23 ,
      2006




/S/
      MARTIN EULER


Name: 
      Martin Euler


Title: 
      Chief Executive Officer and Chief
      Financial Officer
#### Mary E. Combs, *by Committee, Appellant, v.*Susan C. Little and Timothy F. Little, *Respondents*.

Judgment affirmed.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

#   Board Actions 

## Actions taken during the week ending April 15, 2006

----

EnforcementCaisse Nationale de Credit Agricole, Paris, France; Credit Agricole Indosuez; and Credit Agricole Indosuez, New York Branch, New York, New York  -- written agreement dated November 30, 2000, terminated March 9, 2004.					-Announced, April 12, 2006 					

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco
Home | Banking information and regulationAccessibility | Contact   usLast update: April 20, 2006
EXHIBIT 11

COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
(In thousands, except earnings per share data)




Primary and Fully Diluted
Earnings per Share:

                                Three Months ended       Nine Months Ended 
                                   September 30,             September 30,
                                 1997        1996         1997       1996

Net income/(loss)                $25        ($221)       ($161)     ($638) 

Net income/(loss) per share     $.00        ($.02)       ($.01)     ($.05)

Weighted average common 
    shares outstanding        12,604       12,602       12,603     12,596
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cr-20160 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

CLELAN T. JONES, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER DEFERRING PROCEEDINGS ON DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE (ECF No. 61) 

 Now pending before the Court is a motion for compassionate release by 

Defendant Clelan Jones. (See Mot., ECF No. 61.) The Court discussed the motion 

with counsel during an on-the-record video conference on June 14, 2022. For the 

reasons stated on the record, the Court will DEFER further proceedings on the 

motion. At this time, the Government need not respond to the motion. If Mr. Jones 

encounters issues related to his health and/or his medications once be reports to begin 

serving the sentence imposed by this Court and if counsel for Mr. Jones believes that 

those issues warrant Mr. Jones’ compassionate release, counsel for Mr. Jones may 

inform the Court that Mr. Jones wishes to restart the proceedings on his 

compassionate release motion. If and when that occurs, the Court will promptly 

Case 4:15-cr-20160-MFL-MJH ECF No. 65, PageID.223 Filed 06/14/22 Page 1 of 2
2 

convene a status conference with counsel to discuss resuming proceedings on the 

motion for compassionate release on an expedited basis. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

       s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: June 14, 2022 

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

parties and/or counsel of record on June 14, 2022, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Ryan 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5126 

Case 4:15-cr-20160-MFL-MJH ECF No. 65, PageID.224 Filed 06/14/22 Page 2 of 2
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 9
Federal Reserve Bank of: Minneapolis

## Filings received during the week ending February 25, 2006

|Filer                              | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   | End of Comment Period                             
|---------------------------------- | ------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|SALISH AND KOOTENAI BANCORPORATION | * 3A1         | Salish and Kootenai Bancorporation, Polson, Montana, to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the capital stock of Eagle Bank, Polson, Montana, a de novo bank.                                                               | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:03/03/2006
|Newspaper:                         | Not available
|Federal Register:                  | 03/03/2006   
|WESTBRAND, INC.                    | Member* 3A3   | Westbrand, Inc., Minot, North Dakota, to acquire 100 percent of First Western Bank, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, and incident thereto, First Western Bank, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, a de novo bank, to become a member of the Federal Reserve System. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:03/17/2006
|Newspaper:                         | Not available
|Federal Register:                  | 03/17/2006   

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
ABLE TELCOM HOLDING CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



EXHIBIT 21     List of Subsidiaries as of October 31, 1996
----------

The following is a listing of all subsidiaries of Able Telcom Holding Corp. as
of October 31, 1996:

Traffic Management Group, Inc.
        Transportation Safety Contractors, Inc.
        Transportation Safety Contractors of Virginia, Inc.
        Tipco, Inc.
        Georgia Electric Company


Telecommunication Services Group, Inc.
        Able Communication Services Inc.
        H. C. Connell, Inc.


Communications Development Group, Inc.
        Able Telcom/TTI C.A.
        Able Telcom International, Inc.
        Seima Telecommunications, Ltda.
        Neurotechnology, Inc.
        Able Wireless, Inc.


Cable Communications Group, Inc.
**Exhibit 32.3**

 

**CertificationPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with thefiling of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the Quarter Ended June 30,2005 (the “Report”) by American Medical Alert Corp. (“Registrant”), theundersigned hereby certifies that:

 

1.               The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

 

2.               The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Registrant.

 

 
|   | /s/ Richard Rallo       |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Richard Rallo           |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

**Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to American Medical Alert Corp. and will be retained by AmericanMedical Alert Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.**

 

----
§ 201.138 Unsponsored written material. ( a ) *Material that may be deemed evidence.* Where a formal hearing is held, a party shall be afforded an opportunity to participate through submission of relevant, material, reliable and probative written evidence including official notice matters covered in § 201.132(g): *Provided,* That such evidence submitted by persons not present at the hearing will not be made a part of the record if opposed to by any party for good cause shown.
( b ) *Material that may not be deemed evidence.* Letters expressing views or urging action and other unsponsored written material in respect of matters embraced in, or related to, a formal hearing will be placed in the correspondence section of the docket of the proceeding. These data are not to be deemed part of the evidence or part of the record in the material unless sponsored at the public hearing by an authenticating and supporting witness.
#### § 35.35-75 Emergencies—TB/ALL.

In case of emergencies nothing in the regulations in this subchapter shall be construed as preventing the senior officer present from pursuing the most effective action in his judgment for rectifying the conditions causing the emergency.
§ 194.15-3 Responsibility. ( a ) With the knowledge and approval of the master, the senior member of the scientific party embarked may supervise the safety and operation of the chemical laboratory.
( b ) The laboratory supervisor shall: ( 1 ) Maintain the highest standards of safe working conditions.
( 2 ) Provide safeguards against hazardous undertakings.
( 3 ) Educate personnel working in the laboratory spaces to be alert for hazards.
#### Sec. 3 Premiums.

The bonds provided for shall be furnished without cost to the National Shipping Authority, but the cost of the premiums of such bonds shall be included in the overhead expense of the General Agent.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 91 (Friday, May 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 26832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2327]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR


Committee Establishment: Climate Change Science Program Committee 
for Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.2: Thresholds of Climate Change

AGENCY: U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.

ACTION: Estaablishment of a Federal Advisory Committee.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is published in accordance with Section 9(a) of 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-643). Following 
consultation with the General Services Administration, notice is hereby 
given that the Secretary of the Interior has established the Advisory 
Committee for the United States Geological Survey--Climate Change 
Science Program for Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.2--Thresholds of 
Climate Change. The Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), a consortium 
of Federal agencies performing climate science, has established a 
synthesis and assessment (S&A) program as a part of its Strategic Plan. 
There are 21 S&A products to be administered by 13 Federal agencies 
over a 5-year period. The U.S. Geological Survey, a participant in the 
CCSP, is responsible for three S&A products. S&A product 4.2: 
Thresholds of Climate Change is the subject of this Federal Advisory 
Committee.
    The primary function of the Committee is to synthesize and assess 
the state of knowledge on the topic of thresholds of climate change and 
communicate this information to the U.S. Geological Survey. Committee 
members will meet and discuss issues relating to the study design, 
research methodology, data sources and quality, and study findings. The 
Committee will draft a report that will serve as the CCSP definitive 
document on current knowledge pertaining to the topic of thresholds of 
climate change. Membership will consist of Federal and non-Federal 
scientists who are recognized as experts in the climate science 
community.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colleen W. Charles, U.S. Geological 
Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS 301, Reston, Virginia 20192; 
703-648-4110. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#690a0605050c0c07360a01081b050c1a291c1a0e1a470e061f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7615191a1a13131829151e17041a1305360305110558111900">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: May 1, 2007.
Dick Kempthorne,
Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 07-2327 Filed 5-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4311-AM-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-2925

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota Darryl Burton, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: December 7, 1998 Filed: January 21, 1999

___________ Befo re McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and MORRIS SHEPPAR D ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge. Darryl B urton appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court for the District of Minnesota denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e) motion for the return of property. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse and remand.

Burtonwas arrested in connection with a drug transaction, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced. Burton subsequently moved for the return of $22,072 that Minneapolis Police Dep artment (MPD) officers had taken in the search of an apartment pursuan t to a state warrant. Thefederal government responded that it never had custody of the-2-

mone y, and submitted a news release which stated that an MPD officer had pleade d guilty to embezzling over $300,000 of drug-seizure money that he had signed out o f th e MPD property room during a four-year period. Burton argued that th e governm ent’s response implicitly conceded that this MPD officer had taken Burton’s money and that it was part of the $300,000 at issue in this off icer’s federal prosecution. The d istrict court denied Burton’s Rule 41(e) motion, concluding that the federa l government could not be held responsible for returning Burton’s property if it lacked custod yof the property. Burton then requested that his underlying criminal case b e dismissed if the evidence upon which his guilty plea was based was not in the federal prosecutor’s possession.

We conclude that Burton could not collaterally attack the validity of his guilty plea in his Rule 41(e) motion. SeeFe d. R. Crim. P. 32(e) (after sentencing, pleas may be set aside only on direct appeal or by motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255).

We also conclude, however, that the district court improperly denied Burton’s Rul e 41(e) motion without receiving evidence to determine who had custody o r possession of the subject property. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e) (court shall receiv e evidence on any issu e of fact necessary to decision of motion); Rufu v. United States , 20 F.3d 63, 65-66 (2d Cir. 1994) (remanding case where district court did not receive evidence showing what property was seized and how property was disposed of). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings in the district court consistent with this opinion. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 23.01

                      WORLDTALK COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Worldtalk Corporation:

     We consent to  incorporation  by reference in the  registration  statements
(Nos. 333-62411, 333-3510 and 333-32925) on Form S-8 of Worldtalk Corporation of
our report dated January 28, 1999,  relating to the consolidated  balance sheets
of Worldtalk  Corporation  and  subsidiary as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and
the  related  consolidated   statements  of  operations,   stockholders'  equity
(deficit),  and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year  period ended
December  31,  1998,  and the  related  schedule,  which  report  appears in the
December 31, 1998, annual report on Form 10-K of Worldtalk Corporation.



                                                     KPMG LLP



Mountain View, California
March 29, 1999
§ 190.25-15 Guards in dangerous places. ( a ) Suitable hand covers, guards, or rails shall be installed in way of all exposed and dangerous places such as gears, machinery, etc.
# C_2012006EN.01002101.xml

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/21

---

Action brought on 26 October 2011 — tesa v OHIM — Superquimica (tesa TACK)

(Case T-555/11)

2012/C 6/38

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: tesa SE (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: F. Schwab, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: La Superquimica, SA (L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 July 2011 in case R 866/2010-1, and annul the decision of the Opposition Division in case No B 1301987; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 July 2011 in case R 866/2010-1, and annul the decision of the Opposition Division in case No B 1301987; and

| — | Order the defendant to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘tesa TACK’, for goods in class 16 — Community trade mark application No 6233506

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark registration No 585323 of the word mark ‘TACK’, for goods in class 16; Spanish trade mark registration No 2515958 of the figurative mark ‘TACK Ceys’, for goods in class 16

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed the existence of likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.

Pleas in law:

---
Motion to W ithdraw as C ounsel D enied as M oot , M otion for E xtension of T ime

to F ile M otion for R ehearing D enied as M oot, M otion to W ithdraw A ppeal D enied as M oot, A ppeal D ismissed , and Memorandum Opinion filed Ju ly 21 , 202 2

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 2 2

- 00 107

- CR NO. 14

- 2 2

- 00 108

- CR

JARIEN DESEAN ROSS , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 1 82nd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s. 15930 4 1 & 1593102

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant was convicted of evading arrest with a motor vehicle and burglary
of a habitation pursuant to a plea bargain and sentenced to concurrent fifteen

- year terms of incarceration on March 15, 2019

. Appellant timely file d motions to withdraw his guilty pleas on April 5, 2019 that were the equivalent of motion s for2

new trial. See State v. Evans , 843 S.W.2d 576, 577

– 78 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)

. Therefore, appellant’s notice of appeal regarding each of his convictions was due b y June 13, 2019

. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(2).
A court of appeals may grant an extension of time if, within 15 days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal, the party files (a) the notice of appeal in the trial court, and (b) a motion for exte nsion of time in the court of appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3; see also Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b)(2) (governing motion for extension of time to file notice of appeal). The fifteenth day after June 13, 2019 , was June 28,
2022

. Appellant filed his notice o f appeal regarding both of his convictions on February 8, 2022 , a date that is not within 15 days of the due date.
A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26 is essential to vest the court of appeals with jurisdiction.
Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 52 2 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). When a notice of appeal is not filed within the 15

- day period, the court of appeals can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction

. See id.

On March 16 , 2022 the parties were notified that the court would consider dismissal of the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless a ppellant demonstrated that the court has jurisdiction. Appellant’s response s, filed both through counsel and pro

se, do not demonstrate this court’s jurisdiction

. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. All pending
motions 1 are denied as moot.

1 Currently pending before the court are appellant’s appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel, appellant’s pro se motion for extension of time to file a motion for rehearing, and appellant’s motion to withdraw his appeal.3 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Bourliot, Hassan, and Wilson

. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).