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




SECTION
906 CERTIFICATION









Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL 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 accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of China Wi-Max
Communications, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009, I, Steven T. Berman,
President, Director and Principal Executive Officer of China Wi-Max
Communications, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my
knowledge, that:





a)      such
Annual Report on Form 10-K of China Wi-Max Communications, Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





b)      the
information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K of China Wi-Max
Communications, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009, fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
China Wi-Max Communications, Inc.


Date:  April
      15, 2010
                
                
                /s/
      Steven T. BermanSteven
      T. Berman,President
      (Principal
      Executive Officer)


A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
China Wi-Max Communications, Inc. and will be retained by China Wi-Max
Communications, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
#### Shitu Mohammed IBRAHIM, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-2431.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 20, 2005.

Decided Aug. 24, 2005.

Rev. Uduak J. Ubom, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michelle E. Gorden, Senior Litigation Counsel, Michele Y.F. Sarko, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Shitu Mohammed Ibrahim, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming and adopting the immigration judge’s decision denying asylum, withholding from removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture.* Finding no error, we deny the petition for review.

A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal is conclusive if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Our review of the Board’s “asylum eligibility determination is most narrow ... [and] recognizes the respect we must accord the [Board’s] expertise and its status as the Attorney General’s designee in deportation decisions.” *Lopez-Soto v. Ashcroft,*383 F.3d 228, 233 (4th Cir.2004). Administra*205tive findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2000). We will reverse the Board “only if the evidence presented was so compelling that no reasonable fact-finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” *Rusu v. INS,*296 F.3d 316, 325 n. 14 (4th Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We find there was no such compelling evidence. Accordingly, we will not reverse the Board’s decision.

“Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum — even though the facts that must be proved are the same — an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 231(b)(3).” *Camara,*378 F.3d at 367. Because Ibrahim is not eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED*

*

 By not raising the issue in her brief, Ibrahim has abandoned any challenge to the denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 156 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 156

      Honoring and thanking John Thomas Caulfield for a life-long 
    professional commitment to public service and for his years of 
 dedicated service on behalf of the United States Capitol Police, the 
                Capitol Police Board, and the Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 12, 2007

  Mr. Moran of Virginia submitted the following resolution; which was 
           referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
      Honoring and thanking John Thomas Caulfield for a life-long 
    professional commitment to public service and for his years of 
 dedicated service on behalf of the United States Capitol Police, the 
                Capitol Police Board, and the Congress.

Whereas John Thomas Caulfield, a native of Buffalo, New York, was appointed as 
        the United States Capitol Police General Counsel on May 16, 1985;
Whereas prior to this federal service, Mr. Caulfield served as Counsel at the 
        Small Business Administration and the United States Railway Association;
Whereas Mr. Caulfield also contributed to the public interest at the local level 
        in Buffalo as a teacher, coach, and youth recreation and sports 
        supervisor and in community development;
Whereas Mr. Caulfield, throughout his career, has distinguished himself through 
        countless commendations and recognitions for legal professionalism and 
        acumen;
Whereas his unmatched breadth of legal expertise in complex constitutional 
        issues, litigation defense, the legislative process and corporate 
        governance issues has rendered him uniquely capable of providing 
        invaluable legal advice to the United States Capitol Police, the Capitol 
        Police Board, and the Congress;
Whereas Mr. Caulfield, through his legendary work ethic and dedication 
        throughout his federal legal career of thirty years, particularly his 
        service as the General Counsel to the Capitol Police Board and the 
        United States Capitol Police for nearly 22 years as the chief legal 
        advisor to those entities, has distinguished himself as a truly devoted 
        public servant; and
Whereas Mr. Caulfield has always considered public service to be an honor and a 
        privilege among the highest of callings: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives honors and extends its 
sincere appreciation to John Thomas Caulfield and his family for a 
life-long professional commitment to public service and for his years 
of dedicated service on behalf of the United States Capitol Police, the 
Capitol Police Board, and the Congress.
                                 <all>
```
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

J.C.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOCIETY OF JESUS, OREGON

PROVINCE,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C05-1662JLR

ORDER

This matter comes before the court on the motion of the Defendant (“the

Province”) to amend its answer (Dkt. # 100). Although the motion comes only two

months before trial begins, Plaintiff has not opposed it. The court’s review of the

Province’s proposed amended answer shows that the Province does not seek to add a new

defense or claim for relief.

The amended answer makes only one change from the Province’s original answer. 

Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that Father Michael Toulouse, a priest within the

Province, had sexually abused him in 1968. Plaintiff was approximately twelve years old

at the time. Father Toulouse died in 1976. In its original answer, the Province stated that

it had “no knowledge that it knew or should have known of any alleged propensity of

[Father] Toulouse toward sexual misconduct with minors.” In light of a 1951 document

that suggests that at least some priests associated with the Province were aware of a prior

Case 2:05-cv-01662-JLR Document 124 Filed 10/20/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER – 2

instance of sexual misconduct between Father Toulouse and another minor, the Province

has abandoned its denial of knowledge. Instead, the Province (1) states that the passage

of time does “not allow the presentation of all action that was taken with respect to th[e]

information” contained in the 1951 document, (2) insists that the “Province took some

action,” and (3) admits that it does not know the “full extent” of that action. The

Province continues to deny its liability to Plaintiff.

The impact of the amended answer is not obvious, but there appears to be no

reason to depart from the general rule that the court should grant leave to amend

pleadings liberally. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Plaintiff’s refusal to respond to the motion

suggests that it will suffer no prejudice from the amendment. The court therefore

GRANTS the Province’s motion (Dkt. # 100), and directs the Province to file its amended

answer within five days of this order.

Dated this 20th day of October, 2006.

A 

JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01662-JLR Document 124 Filed 10/20/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.9


 


AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


THIS AMENDMENT TO PERSONAL EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
(the “Amendment”) is made and entered into this 8th day of August, 2012 by and between LabStyle
Innovations Corp., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Oren Fuerst (the “Employee”).


 


WHEREAS, the Company entered into
that certain Employment Agreement with the Employee, dated as of March 15, 2012 and effective November 1, 2011 (the “Employment
Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee
desire to amend Exhibit A to the Employment Agreement (“Exhibit A”) to increase the Employee’s annual
base salary on the terms set forth herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the mutual premises, covenants and other agreements contained herein, and pursuant to Section 23 of the Employment Agreement,
the parties hereby agree to amend the Employment Agreement, as follows:


 


1.            Amendment.
The amount of the Salary granted to the Employee (set forth in Exhibit A and as defined under the Employment Agreement) is hereby
amended and increases to $252,000 per year.


 


2.            Miscellaneous.



 


(a)          This
Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Delaware without giving effect
to any choice or conflict of law provision or rule (whether of the State of Delaware or any other jurisdiction) that would cause
the application of laws of any jurisdiction other than those of the State of Delaware.


 


(b)          Except
as modified and amended herein, all of the terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


 


(c)          This
Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall, for all purposes, be deemed an original and all of such counterparts,
taken together, shall constitute one and the same Amendment. A signed copy of this Amendment delivered by facsimile, email or other
means of electronic transmission shall be deemed to have the same legal effect as delivery of an original signed copy of this Amendment.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto
have signed this Amendment as of the date first hereinabove set forth.




  


	/s/ Shilo Ben Zeev	 	/s/ Oren Fuerst
	LabStyle Innovations Corp.	 	     Oren Fuerst
	By:     Shilo Ben Zeev	 	
	Title:  President and COO
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
ALLIED HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS, INC.
Financial Data Schedule for First qUARTER
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             879
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,160
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,160
<INVENTORY>                                     24,524
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                50,900
<PP&E>                                          21,494
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,339
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 124,177
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,810
<BONDS>                                         35,571
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           101
<OTHER-SE>                                      58,695
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   124,177
<SALES>                                         30,173
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,173
<CGS>                                           20,944
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,944
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,299
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,860
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     70
<INCOME-TAX>                                       177
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (107)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    531
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (638)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
No. 59683.

#### Les Parfums De Dana, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 169597-K (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of essential oils the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Ungerer & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 152, C. D. 1647), the claim of the plaintiffjwas sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

GEORGE C. SWINYER Jr.,

Plaintiff,

v.

BALINDA COLE et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5610FDB

ORDER ADOPTING

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

 The Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff’s request for an order to direct the

Department of Corrections to ship property to Plaintiff be denied as unrelated to this lawsuit. The

Court, having reviewed Plaintiffs’ complaint, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

J. Kelley Arnold and the remaining record, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief [Dkt # 18] is DENIED. Plaintiff may not seek

relief on issues that are not part of this action. (3) Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff, counsel for Defendants, and

to the Hon. J. Kelley Arnold.

DATED this 8th day of June, 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05610-FDB Document 34 Filed 06/08/06 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 224 Filed 11/19/04 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 224 Filed 11/19/04 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains  quarterly summary financial  information  extracted from
Mediware Information Systems,  Inc.'s Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December
31,  1996 and is  qualified  in its  entirety by  reference  to such Form 10-QSB
filing.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,372
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,587
<ALLOWANCES>                                       274
<INVENTORY>                                        155
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,565
<PP&E>                                             653
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,479
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,995
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,559
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           495
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,906
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,995
<SALES>                                          9,031
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,031
<CGS>                                            2,696
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,612
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 354
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,111
<INCOME-TAX>                                        40
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,071
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,071
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18
        


</TABLE>
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-0502

_____________________________

PROBODY COLLISION CENTER,

INC. and ASCENDANT CLAIMS 

SERVICES,

Appellants,

v.

CARLOS HERRERA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims.

Margret G. Kerr, Judge.

Date of Accident: October 7, 2016. 

September 6, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, RAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________

Kimberly J. Fernandes of Kelley Kronenberg, P.A., Tallahassee,

for Appellants.

Bram J. Gechtman of Law Offices of Bram J. Gechtman, P.A., 

Miami, for Appellee.
No. 58219.

protests 222048-K, 222103-K, and 223079-K (New York).

#### Morganite, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Morganite strips for trolley inserts similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Morganite, Inc.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 76, C. D. 1448), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: bjchildress2169@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:55:53 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Barbara Childress

Erie, MI 48133
From: ubcapps@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:31:13 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Ulla Capps

Virginia Beach, VA 23452