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 A.B. Watley Group Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Steven Malin, Principal 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;

         (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.

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

/s/ Steven Malin
---------------------------
Name:  Steven Malin
Title: Principal Executive Officer
Date:  February 9, 2005
----

Removal from the register of Case C- 392/03 (1)

(2004/C 118/72)

By order of 19 March 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-392/03: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.

----

(1)OJ C 264 of 1.11.2003.

----
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15** 
**- 7617** 

MARIO JESUS OBREGON ,
Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v.
STEPHANIE HOLLENBACK, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5 :15

- hc

- 02098

- FL )

Submitted : March 29 , 2016 Decided: March 31, 2016

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Mario Jesus Obregon, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Mario Jesus Obregon, a federal prisoner, appeals the district

court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U. S.C. § 2241 (2012)
petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Obregon v. Hollenback , No. 5:15

- hc

- 02098

- FL (E.D.N.C. Oct. 1,

2015) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Edgar Williams and another, Appellants, v. Elaworth L. Striker and another, Respondents.

Judgment reversed, new trial granted, costs to abide event, and order denying motion for new trial reversed, without costs.
----

----

I Comunicazioni

Commissione

----

Tassi di cambio dell'euro (1)

9 giugno 2004

(2004/C 153/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Fonte: tassi di cambio di riferimento pubblicati dalla Banca centrale europea.

----
II

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1142

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the minimum tax

preference for exclusion for incentive stock options.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 29, 2001

Mr. LIEBERMAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal

the minimum tax preference for exclusion for incentive

stock options.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Entrepreneurs Risk

5 Incentive Act of 2001’’.

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF MINIMUM TAX PREFERENCE FOR EX7 CLUSION FOR INCENTIVE STOCK OPTIONS.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (b) of section 56 of the

9 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to adjustments
2

•S 1142 IS

1 in computing alternative minimum taxable income) is

2 amended by striking paragraph (3).

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

4 this section shall apply to options exercised in calendar

5 years beginning after the date of the enactment of this

6 Act.

Æ
**EXHIBIT 32**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the report of CommScope, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersignedofficers of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, asadopted 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 results of            |
| operations of the  Company. |

 
| By:    | /s/ FRANK M. DRENDEL                                  |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Frank M. Drendel                                      |
|   | Chairman and Chief  Executive Officer                 |
|   |                                                  |
| Date:  | August 6, 2008                                   |
|   |                                                  |
|   |                                                  |
| By:    | /s/ JEARLD L. LEONHARDT                               |   |
|   | Jearld L. Leonhardt                                   |
|   | Executive Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |                                                  |
| Date:  | August 6, 2008                                   |
|        |                                                       |        |  |

 

1

----
From: B J Star

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 8:11:47 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

B J Star

P O Box 336

Ozona, FL 34660
From: Catherine Martin

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 5:19:16 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Catherine Martin

781 Somerville Ave

# 2

Somerville, MA 02143
Order entered February 18, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01381-CR

WILLIAM SEDRIC AUTREY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 429-81194-10

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On February 10, 2015, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the 

clerk’s and reporter’s records have not been filed in this appeal. We ADOPT the findings that: 

(1) appellant desires to pursue the appeal; (2) appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed 

without payment for the record; (3) appellant is represented by court-appointed counsel; (4) Jan 

Dugger is the court reporter who recorded the proceedings; and (5) Ms. Dugger’s explanation for 

the delay in filing the record is her workload. We DO NOT ADOPT the finding that Ms. 

Dugger will file the reporter’s record seventy days from February 12, 2015.

We ORDER Jan Dugger, official court reporter of the 296th Judicial District Court, to 

file the reporter’s record in this appeal by APRIL 17, 2015.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Jan 

Dugger, official court reporter, 296th Judicial District Court, and to counsel for all parties. 

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
From: MMEverman@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: religious exemption

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:19:27 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept the

recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care under the

new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive

services are a critical element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to

necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to

contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services, are

pushing the government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for

the exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious

affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all

faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to thousands of women

just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.

Thank you.
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (1.24 MB)
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
Exhibit 32.2

         Certification of Chief Financial Officer of FirstBank NW Corp.
     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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of FirstBank
NW Corp. ("the Company") for the quarter ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report"),
I, Larry K. Moxley, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     o    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) and
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

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





/s/ LARRY K. MOXLEY
-----------------------
Chief Financial Officer

Dated: February 17, 2004


                                                                              31
From: Megan McLaughlin

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 7:38:00 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

All too often, women's health is not a priority in health care policy. I am writing to express my deep

appreciation to the Department of Health & Human Services, for their landmark decision requiring

health insurers to cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available to all women,

regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term health care costs

associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Megan McLaughlin

509 West Iowa St

Urbana, IL 61801
#### ADAMA ALOIA, RESPONDENT, v. PLAINFIELD UNION WATER COMPANY, APPELLANT. PASQUALE ALOIA, RESPONDENT, v. PLAINFIELD UNION WATER COMPANY, APPELLANT.

Submitted May 12, 1933

Decided October 3, 1933.

Before Justices Pakkek, Lloyd and Pekskie.

Por the appellant, *Francis A. Gordon.*

Por the respondents, *Benjamin Gordon*(of Elizabeth).

*826Per Curiam.

The suits were tried together. The respondents are husband and wife. The wife claimed damages because of stepping into a hole in the sidewalk which she alleged to have been negligently created by the defendant. The husband claimed damages *per quod.*Each plaintiff had a judgment.

On the evidence there was reasonable ground to believe that the suits were not brought in good faith, arising out of such facts as that the company discovered the water meters inside the plaintiffs’ houses had been tampered with, and removed them to the outside; and that there had been difficulty about collecting certain charges in connection with the matter.

All this was of course settled by the jury, and but for a ruling on evidence which we deem harmfully erroneous, there would seem to be no good ground for reversal. But with the matters in evidence as just stated, it further appeared that the accident was on December 19th, 1931, Mrs. Aloia was practically recovered inside of two months, the injury was not permanent, and that suit was begun about February 2d, 1933. In this conditon of the evidence she was asked on cross-examination: "Why did you wait so long before you sued the water company?” This was objected to and overruled, and an exception entered.

We think this exclusion was erroneous, and clearly within the decision of this court in *Davenport*v. *Patterson,*98 *N. J. L.*65; 118 *Atl. Rep.*708. The good faith of the suit was plainly in question, and defendant was entitled to an explanation of the delay.

This leads to a reversal in the wife’s case, and as that of the husband hangs on her right of recovery, to a reversal in his case also. The cases will be remanded to the District Court for a new trial.
#### Sarah A. Wood, Plaintiff, v. Jeremiah Young and another, Defendants.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Landon, J.
<PAGE>   1




                                                                      Exhibit 21

                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant

      Listed below, as of January 4, 1999, are the subsidiaries of the Company
and their jurisdictions of organization. All of such subsidiaries are either
directly or indirectly wholly-owned by the Company. Ownership of subsidiaries
indirectly owned by the Company is indicated by indentations. Certain
subsidiaries of the Company have been omitted because, considered in the
aggregate as a single subsidiary, they would not constitute a significant
subsidiary as of the end of the year covered by this report.


                                                           Jurisdiction of
              Name of Subsidiary                            Organization
              ------------------                            ------------

      Orange County Metal Works................................California
      Cylinder City, Inc.......................................Minnesota
      Commercial Hydraulics Pty., Ltd..........................Australia
      Commercial Intertech do Brasil, Ltda.....................Brazil
      Commercial Intertech, s.r.o..............................Czech Republic
      Commercial Intertech Holdings, Ltd.......................England
           Commercial Intertech Limited........................England
           Ultra Group Limited.................................England
                 Ultra Hydraulics Limited......................England
      Astron S.A.R.L...........................................France
      Sachsenhydraulik Chemnitz GmbH...........................Germany
           Commercial Intertech GmbH...........................Germany
      Commercial Hydraulics S.r.l..............................Italy
      Commercial Intertech S.A.................................Luxembourg
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60051 Conference Calendar

JOE L. WARD, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus DAVID ALLEN, Supervisor, Forrest County, Mississippi, in his official capacity, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:94-CV-418-PS

- - - - - - - - - - October 23, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Joe L. Ward has appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, dismissing his action alleging failure to provide him adequate medical attention when he was confined in the Forrest County Jail. As defendants, Ward named the members of the county board of supervisors and the former sheriff. These defendants-appellees may not be held liable under 42 U.S.C.No. 96-60051 - 2 - § 1983 on a theory of respondeat superior; and there is no evidence that they knew of Ward’s medical needs or intended that he be denied medical attention. See Thompkins v. Belt , 828 F.2d 298, 303-05 (5th Cir. 1987). Ward does not now argue otherwise.
See Al-Ra’id v. Ingle , 69 F.3d 28, 33 (5th Cir. 1995).
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
#### Jacob M. Feldman, Appellant, *v.*J. Harry Goldblatt, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

March, 1912.)

Contracts — Building contracts — Interpretation of contracts — Performance of contracts — Actions.

Where a contractor did certain work on a building under a written contract and the owner failed to employ an architect as contemplated thereby, the contractor in an action to recover the value of the work is not bound to furnish an architect’s certificate.'

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, borough of Manhattan, fourth district, rendered1 in favor of the defendant dismissing the complaint.

George Falkinburg, for appellant.

J. J. Lewin, for respondent.

Guy, J.

The plaintiff sues to recover the value of carpenter work- alleged to have been performed by him under a written contract with defendant. The complaint was dismissed, apparently, because no architect’s, certificate was furnished. Plaintiff alleged that the requirement of the contract that an architect’s certificate he furnished before each ‘ payment was waived. The architect testified that he gave no certificate because his work was finished when he drew the plans and specifications; that he refused to supervise the work; that he never examined it; that he could not issue a certificate - without going to the job and unless he was paid for doing so; and that he would not do it, because it was a small job and he did not care to look after a lot of small contractors he knew nothing about. The agreement contemplated that defendants should employ an architect, whose duty it would he to pass upon the question whether the work was performed according to contract. When an owner fails *657to employ such architect, the contractor is not obliged tó furnish a certificate. Thomas v. Fleury, 26 N. Y. 26-34; Haden v. Coleman, 73 id. 567, 570.

Seabury and Bijur, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                  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  A.B.  Watley  Group  Inc. (the
"Company")  on  Form 10-Q for the three months ended December 31, 2002, as filed
with  the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
John  J.  Amore,  the  Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
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 results of operations
          of the Company.



                                                   /s/ Steven Malin
                                                   ------------------------
                                                   Steven Malin
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                                   Date:  April 15, 2003



                                      -23-
<PAGE>