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

**Certification of CEO 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 Transition Report of Comprehensive CareCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2007 (the “Report”), Mary Jane Johnson, as Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of her knowledge, that: 

(1) The 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company. 

 

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. 

A signed original of thiswritten 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, hasbeen provided to Comprehensive Care Corporation and will be retained by Comprehensive Care Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 
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 Hamptons Luxury Homes, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Roy Dalene, Chief Executive Officer 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) and 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. May 15, 2007 /s/ Roy Dalene Roy Dalene Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Cheshire,

Dec., 1900.

#### Marsh *v.*New Hampshire Fire Insurance Co.

A fire insurance policy on a mill building,' and all additions thereto adjoining and communicating, covers an engine-house and dry-house connected with the main structure by a movable bridge.

Debt, on a policy of insurance. Trial by jury. The plaintiff is a pail-maker. His plant consists of a frame mill building with .an addition built on to it, a dry-house about twelve feet from the main building, and an engine-house about four feet from the dry-house. The engine-house and the dry-house are connected with the main building by a movable bridge. All the buildings are occupied by the plaintiff for the purposes of his business, and are •commonly spoken of as his pail shop. The agent who wrote the policy was familiar with the premises. The engine-house and the ■dry-house were damaged by fire, May 17, 1899. A nonsuit was ordered on the ground that they were not included in the policy, and the plaintiff excepted.

*Oliver E. Branch,*for the plaintiff.

*Samuel O. Eastman,*for the defendants.

Young, J.

The language of the policy, “ on frame mill building and all additions thereto adjoining and communicating . . . occupied by the assured as a pail shop,” was apt to describe the buildings occupied by the plaintiff in manufacturing pails, and commonly spoken of as his pail shop. “All additions” means more than a single addition. “ Adjoining ” describes the addition built on to the main building. “ Communicating ” describes the dry-house and the engine-house, for they communicate with the main building by means of the movable bridge. 2 Cent. Diet., communicate, int. The description included all additions which either adjoin or communicate with the frame mill building and were, occupied by the plaintiff for manufacturing pails. Consequently the policy covered both the engine-house and the dry-house.

*Exception sustained: judgment for the plaintiff.*

■Chase, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
From: George Ardoin [mailto:George.Ardoin@intecsea.com] 

Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 5:17 AM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN 1210-AB33 is not your right!

To Whom It May Concern: 

My “HARD” earned retirement 401K or other retirement savings are for my benefit and not for you 

to determine that you should take or have the right to some of those monies for distribution to 

others! 

If you or others do not have the desire to work hard and save to enjoy your retirement then it is 

your actions and irresponsibility and therefore you shall reap what you sow! 

Regards,

George Ardoin

INTECSEA

main: 281-987-0800, direct: 281-925-1559, cell: 281-382-1413

email: george.ardoin@intecsea.com, web: www.intec.com
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### June 28, 2013 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v. FRANCISCO ADAN LOPEZ, Defendant–Appellant. No. 13-2045 (D.C. Nos. 2:12-CV-01035-RB-LFG and 2:11-CR-01163-RB-2) (D. N.M.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

Before LUCERO , McKAY , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
Appellant Fancisco Lopez seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas petition. Appellant pled guilty to two federal drug charges and was sentenced to forty-six months of imprisonment, a substantial reduction from the sentence he faced without the benefit of the plea agreement. Appellant then filed his § 2255 petition, claiming (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea negotiations because counsel failed to advise him of the deportation consequences of pleading guilty and (2) the “plea admonishment

* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.[regarding immigration consequences] . . . violate[d] the Fifth Amendment Due Process” clause (App. at 17) because it contained nothing more than a “‘boilerplate’ advisory” (App. at 50). After reviewing the record, the magistrate judge concluded there was no factual support for Appellant’s claims. The record, including Appellant’s own statements at the change of plea hearing, clearly demonstrated that Appellant was indeed informed, “You’re . . . going to be deported because there is a mandatory deportation provision because you are pleading to . . . two drug offenses.” (App. at 219.) The magistrate judge then noted that although Appellant’s “Fifth Amendment claim is unclear,” it appeared to be “premised on an argument that [his] guilty plea was taken involuntarily, unintelligently, and unknowingly in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause, based on ‘murky’ language in the plea agreement.” (App. at 624.) However, there was no evidence to support Appellant’s apparent assertion that his plea was not voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. Accordingly, the magistrate judge recommended the district court deny Appellant’s § 2255 petition. After considering Appellant’s objections, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations and denied Appellant’s petition. Appellant now appeals. After thoroughly reviewing Appellant’s arguments and the record on appeal, we conclude that reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s decision. See Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)

. Thus, for substantially the same reasons given by the magistrate judge and the district court, we DENYAppellant’s request for a certificate

-2-of appealability and DISMISS the appeal.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge

-3-
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-4766

_____________________________

STEPHANIE NICOLE YOUNG,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

J. Scott Duncan, Judge.

July 17, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, ROBERTS, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Megan Long, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.17

                                    THE BANK
                           LOAN MODIFICATION AGREEMENT
                              K-Tron America, Inc.
                                  P.O. Box 888
                             Pitman, NJ 08071-0888

Date: December 31, 2003                           Account #: 6039359-6600
Original Amount: $5,000,000.00                    Present Balance: $1,834,500.00

WHEREAS, the undersigned borrower executed the note referred to above on JUNE
27, 1998 And,

WHEREAS, loan documents as applicable, executed by the borrowers allows for a
modification of interest rate, due date or other terms or conditions without
affecting the priority of The Bank's lien.

NOW, therefore, in consideration of a modification fee of $0.00, the above
referenced note is modified as follows:

COMMITMENT            The total commitment on the line of credit is hereby
                      increased from $4,000,000.00 to $5,000,000.00 effective
                      December 31, 2003.

All other terms and conditions of the original note, commitment letter and any
security thereto attached is fully incorporated herein and fully ratified except
as specifically modified by this modification agreement.

THE BANK                                             K-TRON AMERICA, INC.

BY: /s/ David J. Hanrahan         2/10/04     /s/ Patricia M. Moore     2/5/04
   ----------------------------   -------     -----------------------   ------
   DAVID J. HANRAHAN, SR.          DATE       PATRICIA M. MOORE          DATE
   EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT                   VP/FINANCE

                                              /s/ Mary E. Vaccara       2/5/04
                                              ------------------------  ------
                                              MARY E. VACCARA SECRETARY  DATE
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JUNY ABRAHAM,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D14-3825

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed December 16, 2016

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Orange County,

Robert M. Evans, Judge.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and 

Kathryn Rollison Radtke, Assistant Public 

Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Juny Abraham appeals his sentence for robbery with a firearm following the 

revocation of his community control. Abraham contends that the trial court erred in four 

respects: 1) entering a fifty-year sentence in violation of Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 

(2010); 2) imposing a vindictive sentence; 3) failing to include his youthful offender 
2

designation in his sentencing documents; and 4) failing to note in his sentencing 

documents that he is eligible for judicial review after twenty years’ incarceration. We 

affirm on the first two issues without further discussion.

However, the State concedes error on the third and fourth issues. Abraham was 

initially sentenced on the underlying charge as a youthful offender. As the trial court orally 

ruled, Abraham retained his youthful offender status after being sentenced for violation of 

community control. See Christian v. State, 84 So. 3d 437, 442-43 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). 

Furthermore, the trial court also orally ruled that Abraham was entitled to judicial review 

of his sentence after twenty years’ incarceration. See Barnes v. State, 175 So. 3d 380, 

382 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); § 921.1402(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2015). However, the sentencing 

order does not reflect these rulings. Therefore, we remand for the trial court to amend 

Abraham’s sentencing documents to reflect that he was sentenced as a youthful offender 

and that he is eligible for judicial review after twenty years’ incarceration pursuant to the

statute.

REMANDED.

LAWSON, C.J., SAWAYA and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 15

# LETTER REGARDING
UNAUDITED INTERIM FINANCIAL INFORMATION

WidePoint Corporation
One Lincoln Centre
18W140 Butterfield Road, Suite 1100
Oakbrook Terrace, IL  60181

We have reviewed, in accordance with
the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
unaudited interim financial information of WidePoint Corporation as of September 30, 2005
and 2004, and for the three-month and nine-month periods then ended, as indicated in our
report dated January 19, 2006. Because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no
opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred
to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended
September 30, 2005, is incorporated by reference to our report in Form S-8 in the
companys previously filed Registration Statement No. 333-55993.

We are also aware that the
aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436 (c) under the Securities Act of
1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by an
accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

/s/  GRANT THORNTON LLP

Chicago, Illinois
January 19, 2006
§ 92.9 Exceptions to notice, hearing, written response, and final decision. ( a ) *Exceptions.* The procedural requirements of 5 U.S.C. 5514 do not apply to recovery by way of retroactive deductions for administrative adjustments associated with the Federal benefits program. In such cases the content of the notification to employees is stated in § 92.9(b).
( b ) *Simplified procedures to be followed.* In the event that a retroactive deduction from pay or allowances is required to recover an insufficiency of deductions arising through normal processing delays, and those insufficient deductions did not occur in more than four pay periods, rather than following the specific procedures required by 5 U.S.C. 5514(a)(2), and set forth in §§ 92.11 through 92.17 of this part, the DOT creditor operating element shall issue in advance of the collection a simplified notice to the employee that: ( 1 ) Because of the employee's election for changes in voluntary payroll deduction, corresponding deductions shall be imposed on the employee's salary to cover the period between the effective date of the election and the first regular withholding. The employee may dispute the amount of the retroactive collection by notifying his or her accounting or finance officer; or
( 2 ) Due to a normal ministerial adjustment in pay or allowances which could not be placed into effect immediately, future pay will be reduced to permit the DOT creditor operating element to recover any excess pay or allowances received by the employee. The employee may dispute the amount of the retroactive collection by notifying his or her accounting or finance officer.
( c ) *Limitation on exceptions.* The exceptions described in paragraph (a) of this section shall not include a recovery required to be made for any reason other than routine processing delays in putting the change into effect, even if the period of time for which the amounts must be retroactively recovered is less than four pay periods. If normal processing delays exceed four pay periods, then the full procedures prescribed under 5 U.S.C. 5514 and §§ 92.11 through 92.17 of this part will be extended to the employee.
[53 FR 4171, Feb. 12, 1988, as amended at 53 FR 51279, Dec. 21, 1988]
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

38737

Vol. 63, No. 138

Monday, July 20, 1998

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket No. EE–RM–94–230]

RIN 1904–AA52

Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products: Test Procedure

for Water Heaters; Correction

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, DOE.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: This correction notice amends

the Final Rule on test procedures for

water heaters. The Department of

Energy (the Department or DOE) is

amending Section 4.3 (Water Inlet and

Outlet Configuration) to include Figures

1–7 as referenced in the Final Rule

published May 11, 1998. (63 FR 25996)

(FR Doc. 98–12296). Soon after

publication of the Final Rule, the Gas

Appliance Manufacturer’s Association

noted that these figures were missing.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective

June 10, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Terrence L. Logee, U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Mail Station EE–43,

Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence

Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585–

0121, (202) 586–1689, or Eugene

Margolis, Esq., U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of General Counsel, Mail

Station GC–72, Forrestal Building, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20585–0103, (202) 586–

9507.

Correction

In Rule FR Doc. 98–12296, beginning

on page 25996, in the issue of Monday,

May 11, 1998, the following correction

should be made:

PART 430—[CORRECTED]

Figures 1–7 should be added

immediately after Appendix E to

Subpart B of Part 430, Section 4.3,

Water Inlet and Outlet Configuration, on

page 26010, third column.

Appendix E to Subpart B of Part 430—

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the

Energy Consumption of Water Heaters

* * * * *

4.3 * * *

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
38738 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 1998 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 38739
38740 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 1998 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 38741

* * * * * Issued in Washington, DC, July 13, 1998.

Dan Reicher,

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy.

[FR Doc. 98–19290 Filed 7–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 73 FR 33329, June 12, 2008.

§ 40.403 Must a service agent notify its clients when the Department issues a PIE? ( a ) As a service agent, if the Department issues a PIE concerning you, you must notify each of your DOT-regulated employer clients, in writing, about the issuance, scope, duration, and effect of the PIE. You may meet this requirement by sending a copy of the Director's PIE decision or by a separate notice. You must send this notice to each client within three business days of receiving from the Department the notice provided for in § 40.399(b).
( b ) As part of the notice you send under paragraph (a) of this section, you must offer to transfer immediately all records pertaining to the employer and its employees to the employer or to any other service agent the employer designates. You must carry out this transfer as soon as the employer requests it.
[65 FR 79526, Dec. 19, 2000, as amended at 66 FR 41955, Aug. 9, 2001]
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 Fact Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jacqueline Danforth, President and Principal Accounting Officer, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date:  August 22, 2005

By:  /s/ Jacqueline Danforth

Name:  Jacqueline Danforth

Title:    President (Principal Executive Officer and Principal

Accounting Officer)
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 15

- 14623 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:15

- cr - 00079

- WJC

- JSS

- 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,
versus JOSE ANGEL HERNANDEZ

- MARTINEZ , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ (May 31, 2017) Before HULL , MARCUS and JILL PRYOR , Ci rcuit Judges. PER CURIAM: George C. Bedell, III , appointed counsel for Jose Angel Hernandez

- Martinez in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation

Case: 15-14623 Date Filed: 05/31/2017 Page: 1 of 22 of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motio n to withdraw is GRANTED , and Hernandez

- Martinez ’s conviction s and sentence s are AFFIRMED
.

Case: 15-14623 Date Filed: 05/31/2017 Page: 2 of 2