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







CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




(18 U.S.C. 1350)




Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned officer of SwissINSO Holding Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer's knowledge and belief, that:




(1)           The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Form 10-K”) of the Company 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:  April 15, 2011


/s/Yves Ducommun


Yves Ducommun


Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive Officer)





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SwissINSO Holding Inc. and will be retained by SwissINSO Holding Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 59253.

protests 216113-K etc. (New York).

#### Hedaya Mercantile Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

*229Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk scarves or squares similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                18 U.S.C.ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Osteotech, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard W. Bauer,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.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.

                                        /S/Richard W. Bauer
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Richard W. Bauer
                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                        (Principal Executive Officer)
                                        August 12, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or any
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 the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gregory Counts, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 4]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald Zweibel, J.), rendered May 12, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of four counts of rape in the first degree, three counts of sodomy in the first degree and kidnapping in the second degree, and sentencing him to seven concurrent terms of 8 to 24 years and a consecutive term of 8 to 24 years, unanimously affirmed.

We reject defendant’s contention, based on the forensic scientist’s conclusion that the DNA isolated from the semen *219stain on complainant’s clothing did not belong to defendant, that the evidence of his guilt on the rape and sodomy counts was insufficient, since corroborative medical evidence is not required to sustain a rape conviction based on a theory of forcible compulsion *(People v Arhin,*203 AD2d 62, *Iv denied*83 NY2d 908). We note the absence of defendant’s DNA in the semen sample was readily explained: complainant testified that she did not know whether defendant had ejaculated during the sexual assaults and that she had engaged in sexual intercourse with her boyfriend on the evening before and the morning of the day of the attack.

Defendant’s remaining contentions have largely been considered and rejected by this Court on the appeal of codefendant Perry Van Dyke (214 AD2d 468) and are, in any event, without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6960

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EMJADIA PORTER, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-37, CA-00-679-7) Submitted: October 24, 2001 Decided: November 7, 2001 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Emjadia Porter, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Breeding Peters, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Emjadia Porter seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001)and his motion for reconsideration. Porter challenged his conviction and sentence under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Because Apprendi is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review, the district court properly denied relief on this claim. United States v. Sanders , 247 F.3d 139, 151 (4th Cir. 2001), pet. for cert. filed (Oct. 9, 2001) (No. 01-6715). We find that the district court properly found that Porter’s remaining claim was successive. In re Taylor , 171 F.3d 185, 187-88 (4th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 1

JUDGE FRANKLIN D. BURGESS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

 ALEXANDER ZADORIN,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR05-5803FDB

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

DATE 

Upon the stipulation of the parties to continue the trial date in the abovecaptioned case, the Court finds that the ends of justice will be served by ordering a

continuance in the case, that continuing the trial date is necessary in order to allow the

parties to conduct plea negotiations and to allow defense counsel adequate time to

investigate and to effectively prepare for trial, and that these factors outweigh the best

interests of the public and the defendant in a more speedy trial, within the meaning of 18

U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(A). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the trial date in this case shall be continued

from January 17, 2006 to March 20, 2006. 

//

//

//

//

Case 3:05-cr-05803-RBL Document 22 Filed 01/04/06 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

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 2

The period of delay resulting from this continuance from January 17, 2006, up to and

including the new trial date of March 20, 2006, is hereby excluded for speedy trial

purposes under 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(A) and (B).

DONE this 4th day of January, 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

/s/ /s/ 

 Linda R. Sullivan David R. Jennings 

Attorney for Defendant Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:05-cr-05803-RBL Document 22 Filed 01/04/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 23.1





















































Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








As independent registered public accountants of The First Bancorp, Inc., we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement on Form S-3 of our report dated March 11, 2011, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of The First Bancorp, Inc. and Subsidiary as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2010, and the effectiveness of the internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, which reports appear in the December 31, 2010 annual report on Form 10-K of The First Bancorp, Inc.





We also consent to the reference under the heading “Experts” in such Registration Statement.














Portland, Maine


July 22, 2011
AGREED ORDER FOR EAJA FEES - Page 1 

[C05-5622RBL]

MADDOX & LAFFOON, P.S. 

410-A South Capitol Way 

Olympia, WA. 98501 

(360) 786-8276 

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 

U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold 

U.S. District Court Judge Ronald B. Leighton 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 

JULIE WILLIAMS, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

 Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CIVIL NO. C05-5622RBL 

AGREED ORDER FOR EAJA FEES 

 ) 

Based on the Stipulation of the parties, it is hereby 

ORDERED that Plaintiff's attorney, Jeanette Laffoon, is hereby awarded EAJA fees 

of $5,688. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of May, 2006. 

 A

RONALD B. LEIGHTON 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

Presented by: 

/s/ Jeanette Laffoon 

JEANETTE LAFFOON, WSB #30872 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Approved for entry, 

Case 3:05-cv-05622-RBL Document 22 Filed 05/02/06 Page 1 of 2
AGREED ORDER FOR EAJA FEES - Page 2 

[C05-5622RBL]

MADDOX & LAFFOON, P.S. 

410-A South Capitol Way 

Olympia, WA. 98501 

(360) 786-8276 

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 

Notice of presentation waived: 

/s/ Franco L. Becia 

FRANCO L. BECIA, WSBA #26823 

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney 

Attorney for Defendant 

(Signed per telephonic agreement) 

CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC FILING:

This is to certify that I electronically filed the foregoing Agreed Order for EAJA Fees with 

the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing 

to the following: 

Franco L. Becia 

Special Asst. U.S. Attorney 

Office of General Counsel 

701 5th Avenue, Suite 2900, MS/901 

Seattle, WA 98104-7075 

Franco.L.becia@ssa.gov 

Brian C. Kipnis 

Asst. U.S. Attorney 

Department of Justice 

U.S. Attorney’s Office 

700 Stewart Street, Ste 5220 

Seattle, WA 98101-1271 

brian.kipnis@usdoj.gov 

 

I hereby certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service foregoing Agreed Order 

for EAJA Fees, Costs, and Expenses and its attachments to the following non-CM/ECF 

participants: 

 NONE 

DATED: May 1, 2006 /s/ Dawn Erdelbrock

Dawn Erdelbrock, Legal Assistant 

MADDOX & LAFFOON, P.S. 

Case 3:05-cv-05622-RBL Document 22 Filed 05/02/06 Page 2 of 2
Before the First Division,

February 25, 1959

No. 62772.

#### Grosse’ Jewels *v.*United States,

protest 58/5934 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

The protest was dismissed.
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

MINUTE ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

MYFREEMEDICINE.COM, LLC

Defendant.

No. C05-1607

MINUTE ORDER

The following minute order is made by the direction of the court, the Honorable Marsha J.

Pechman:

The parties have not complied with the order directing that a joint status report be filed by

November 16, 2005. The time for filing the report is hereby extended to ten days from the date of

this order. If the report is not filed by that time, sanctions may be ordered. Sanctions may include

dismissal of the action without prejudice.

Filed this 28th day of November, 2005.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk

By: /s Mary Duett

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:05-cv-01607-MJP Document 13 Filed 11/28/05 Page 1 of 1
H. Res. 581 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 31, 2007. 

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 

the bill (H.R. 3161) making appropriations for Agriculture, 

Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 

30, 2008, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 

shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 

9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the 

bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 

Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill 

shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 

rule. Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure 

to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
2 

•HRES 581 EH 

Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition 

on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment 

has caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule 

XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. 

When the committee rises and reports the bill back to the 

House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 3161 

pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 

the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated by the 

Speaker. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 68125]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21769]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel R24 Review.
    Date: November 27, 2023.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of 
General Medical Sciences, Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive, 
Bethesda, Maryland 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Greg Bissonette, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute of General 
Medical Sciences, National Institute of Health, 45 Center Drive, 
Room Hoteling, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, 301-827-5118, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#31535842425e5f544545545653715c50585d1f5f58591f565e47"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d8bab1ababb7b6bdacacbdbfba98b5b9b1b4f6b6b1b0f6bfb7ae">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.859, 
Biomedical Research and Research Training, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 27, 2023.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-21769 Filed 10-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Case No. 8,837.

#### In re MACKAY et al.

[4 N. B. R. 66 (Quarto, 17); 12 Chi. Leg. News, 393.]

District Court, S. D. New York.

1870.

Bankruptcy — Discharge—No Proper Books— Cash-Book.

Where bankrupts are charged with not keeping proper books of account and the receipts and disbursements entered in cash-book were unintelligible, *held,*discharges cannot be granted to bankrupts.

[Cited in Re Howard, 10 Atl. 719.]

[In the matter of John Murdock Mackay and John Neilson, bankrupts.]

T. C. F. Buckley, for creditor.

G. C. Barrett, for bankrupts.

1

 [Reprinted from 4 N. B. R. 66 (Quarto, *11),*by permission.]

BLATCHFORD, District Judge.

I have been carefully through more than once the thirteen hundred manuscript folios of testimony in this case, and the various schedules *157and books of account put in evidence, and am compelled to come to the conclusion that discharges cannot he granted to the bankrupts.

[Subsequently discharge was, upon the same grounds, refused to John Maxwell Maekay, another member of the bankrupt firm. Case No. 8,838.]

The principal specification of objection to their discharge, is, that being merchants and traders within the meaning of the bankrupt act [of 1867; 14 Stat. 517], they have not, subsequently to the passage of the said act, kept proper books of account. Various particulars under this head are stated in the specifications. It is impossible to examine the cash-book of the firm of J. M. Maekay & Co., of which the bankrupts were members, nor to read in connection with it the testimony of the bankrupt Maekay, and not come to the conclusion that such cash-book fails to show, in an intelligible or proper manner, the nature and character of such receipts and disbursements of cash made by the firm as are entered therein, and that it fails to contain many entries of receipts and disbursements of cash that were made by the firm. It is also apparent from the testimony of the bankrupt Maekay, that many receipts and disbursements of cash were made by the firm that were not entered in any book or account, and of which no record was made. These objections are embraced in the specifications, and, upon them, without examining any of the other grounds specified, I am satisfied that it is my duty to refuse discharge.
No. 66049.

#### Empire Findings Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 59/28340, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of otoscopes similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Empire Finding Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(44 Cust. Ct. 21, C.D. 2148), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. P67/109.

#### R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 65/1101 (New York).

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of articles of synthetic rubber similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Weather-Rite Sportswear Co., Inc.*(52 CCPA 7, C.A.D. 848), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### Kristen Revy, Respondent, v Ski Windham Operating Corp., Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 45]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated June 21, 1994, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 501 to change the venue of the action from Kings County to Greene County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs!

*569When, as here, venue is in an improper county, a party who wishes to change venue as of right must serve a demand to change the place of trial to the proper county before the service of a responsive pleading is due *(Matter of D.M.C. Constr. Corp. v Nash Steel Corp.,*70 AD2d 635). Because the defendant in this case failed to serve such a demand, it is foreclosed from obtaining a change of venue as of right, and the issue is left to the court’s discretion *(see, Losicco v Gardner’s Vil.,*97 AD2d 535). Moreover, the affidavit submitted by the defendant in support of its motion to change venue was insufficient to establish entitlement to a change of venue based on the convenience of material witnesses *(see,*CPLR 510 [3]; *Matter of O’Brien v Vassar Bros. Hosp.,*207 AD2d 169). Thus, the. court’s denial of the defendant’s motion was not an improvident exercise of discretion. Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 08, 2020.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 08, 2020

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A20I0238. MICHAEL B. HILL, et al. v. DOZIER LAW FIRM, LLC.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2019CV070038
No. P67/289.

#### Brown Boveri Corp. and Gehrig, Hoban & Co., Inc. *v.*United States, protests 242404-K, etc. (New York).

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of voltage regulators and parts, which are essential components of, and dedicated to use therewith, the samé in all material respects as those the subject of *Brown Boveri Corp.*and *Gehrig Hoban & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(40 Cust. Ct. 168, C.D. 1978), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
(R.D. 11538)

#### C. H. Powell Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 13806.

(Decided June 3, 1968)

*Tompkins & Tompkins*for the plaintiff.

*Edwm L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Donlon, Judge:

This appeal to reappraisement on the calendar of the Boston Term was called in New York on April 10, 1968, at a regularly scheduled calendar call. Plaintiff appeared by counsel. Defendant moved that this appeal be dismissed on the ground that it had not been timely filed as required by statute. Plaintiff conceded untimeliness.

On consideration of the record, it appearing that notice of appraisement was mailed to plaintiff November 12, 1965, and that plaintiff’s written appeal for reappraisement was filed 32 days thereafter, on December 14, 1965, the appeal was found to be untimely. (Section 501, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.) This appeal should be dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.