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

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                      AND INTERIM CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                    OF
                     BION ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-QSB of Bion Environmental Technologies, Inc. for the period ending
September 30, 2003:

     (1) complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, EXCEPT THAT THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE
Quarter ENDED  September  30, 2003 HAVE NOT BEEN AUDITED OR REVIEWED BY
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS AND THE NOTES THERETO AND THE DISCUSSIONS WITHIN THE
ANNUAL REPORT OF SUCH NUMBERS HAVE HOT BEEN AUDITED OR REVIEWED BY OUR
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS; and

     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of Bion
Environmental Technologies, Inc.


/s/ Mark A. Smith
-------------------------------
Mark A. Smith
Chief Executive Officer and
Interim Chief Financial Officer

November 18, 2003


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Bion Environmental
Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Bion Environmental Technologies,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.
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

I, Mindy Grossman, certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my
knowledge:

(1) the Annual Report of HSN, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 of HSN, Inc. (the
Report), which this statement accompanies 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 HSN, Inc.



|                        |  |     |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: February 23, 2011 |  | By: |  | /s/    MINDY
GROSSMAN  
|                        |  |     |  | Mindy Grossman         
|                        |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 69

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That, in the enrollment of the bill (S. 830)

3 to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and

4 the Public Health Service Act to improve the regulation

5 of food, drugs, devices, and biological products, and for

6 other purposes, the Secretary of the Senate shall make

7 the following corrections:

8 (1) In section 119(b) of the bill:

9 (A) Strike paragraph (2) (relating to con10 forming amendments).

11 (B) Strike ‘‘(b) SECTION 505(j).—’’ and

12 all that follows through ‘‘‘(3)(A) The Secretary

13 shall’’ and insert the following:

14 ‘‘(b) SECTION 505(j).—Section 505(j) (21 U.S.C.

15 355(j)) is amended by adding at the end the following

16 paragraph:

17 ‘‘‘(9)(A) The Secretary shall’’.

18 (2) In section 125(d)(2) of the bill, in the mat19 ter preceding subparagraph (A), insert after ‘‘anti-
2

SCON 69 ES

1 biotic drug’’ the second place such term appears the

2 following: ‘‘(including any salt or ester of the anti3 biotic drug)’’.

4 (3) In section 127(a) of the bill: In section

5 503A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

6 (as proposed to be inserted by such section 127(a)),

7 in the second sentence of subsection (d)(2), strike

8 ‘‘or other criteria’’ and insert ‘‘and other criteria’’.

9 (4) In section 412(c) of the bill:

10 (A) In subparagraph (1) of section 502(e)

11 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

12 (as proposed to be amended by such section

13 412(c)), in subclause (iii) of clause (A), insert

14 before the period the following: ‘‘or to prescrip15 tion drugs’’.

16 (B) Strike ‘‘(c) MISBRANDING.—Subpara17 graph (1) of section 502(e)’’ and insert the fol18 lowing:

19 ‘‘(c) MISBRANDING.—

20 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (1) of sec21 tion 502(e)’’.

22 (C) Add at the end the following:

23 ‘‘(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in

24 this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall

25 affect the question of the authority of the Secretary
3

SCON 69 ES

1 of Health and Human Services regarding inactive

2 ingredient labeling for prescription drugs under sec3 tions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

4 other than section 502(e)(1)(A)(iii).’’.

5 (5) Strike section 501 of the bill and insert the

6 following:

7 ‘‘SEC. 501. EFFECTIVE DATE.

8 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise provided in

9 this Act, this Act and the amendments made by this Act

10 shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of

11 this Act.

12 ‘‘(b) IMMEDIATE EFFECT.—Notwithstanding sub13 section (a), the provisions of and the amendments made

14 by sections 111, 121, 125, and 307 of this Act, and the

15 provisions of section 510(m) of the Federal Food, Drug,

16 and Cosmetic Act (as added by section 206(a)(2)), shall

17 take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.’’.

Passed the Senate November 13, 1997.

Attest:

Secretary.
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 69

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To correct the enrollment of the bill S. 830.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                CERTIFICATION Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned officer of ALLIED HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS, INC. (the "Company"),
hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the Company's fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2006
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.


                                        /s/ Earl R. Refsland
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Earl R. Refsland
                                        President & Chief Executive Officer

November 7, 2006
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


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

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of
PeopleSoft, Inc. (the "Company"), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on
his knowledge:

      -     the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period
            ended September 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of
            Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      -     the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operation
            of the Company.

Dated: November 14, 2002


/S/ CRAIG A. CONWAY
-------------------------------------
Craig A. Conway
President and Chief Executive Officer
PeopleSoft, Inc.


/S/ KEVIN T. PARKER
----------------------------------------------------
Kevin T. Parker
Executive Vice President, Finance and Administration
Chief Financial Officer
PeopleSoft, Inc.


                                       40
| Skip to Content*Release Date: June 5, 2014*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**F.205 Time and Savings Deposits** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
ATTACHMENT II CAS NAME
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 60 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      January 12, 2007.
    Resolved,  That the following named Members be, and are hereby, elected to 
the following standing committees of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Armed Services: Mr. Cummings (to rank immediately after Ms. 
Giffords).
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: Ms. Matsui (to rank 
immediately after Mr. Lipinski).
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
From: jimshbrand@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:15:36 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,

James Brandt

Houston, TX 77055
Before the First Division,

July 22, 1954

No. 58280.

protest 148635-K (New York).

#### Isaac A. Schoen & Sons, Inc., and H. J. Devoy *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of fox skins similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *0. Brager-Larsen*(36 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 388). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was therefore sustained.
No. 57438.

#### Freund-Mayer & Co., Inc., and H. W. Robinson & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 198903-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

Paper napkins stipulated to be similar in all material respects to the merchandise the subject of *Freund Mayer & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 123, C. A. D. 474) were held dutiable at 15 percent under the provision in paragraph 1413, as modified by T. D. 51802, for paper, embossed, cut, die-cut, or stamped into shapes. Other items of the merchandise stipulated to consist of manufactures of paper wadding or manufactures of pulp wadding the same as importations which are currently being classified as manufactures of paper wadding or pulp wadding, pursuant to the provision therefor in paragraph 1404, as modified by T. D. 51802, were held dutiable under said paragraph at 6 cents per pound and 7J4 percent ad valorem.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 99-40901

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHARLES TIMOTHY ISAAC,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:96-CV-187

_________________________________________________________________

May 4, 2000

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Charles Timothy Isaac (“Isaac”), federal prisoner #04252-078,

has filed a pro se appeal of the district court’s denial of, and

denial of leave to amend, his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Isaac’s

motion challenged his 1993 guilty plea conviction for using and

carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking

crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), and possessing a

firearm after being convicted of a felony, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 
2

 The record does not conclusively show that Isaac is entitled

to no relief with respect to: (1) his claim that his guilty plea

was involuntary due to his counsel’s promise of an off-the-record

deal; (2) his claim that his counsel provided ineffective

assistance by erroneously advising him regarding the scope of

liability under § 924(c)(1); and (3) his claim that his counsel

provided ineffective assistance by failing to comply with his

request for a direct appeal. Because these claims are thus not

futile, see § 2255, the district court abused its discretion in

denying Isaac’s motion for leave to amend his § 2255 motion in

order to assert them. See Leffall v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 28

F.3d 521, 524 (5th Cir. 1994); see also Duff-Smith v. Collins, 973

F.2d 1175, 1180 (5th Cir. 1992) (28 U.S.C. § 2254 case). 

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is VACATED and this

case is REMANDED to the district court with the instruction to

grant Isaac leave to amend his § 2255 motion in order to assert the

above claims. We neither express nor intimate any view as to the

claims’ ultimate merits. Finally, we decline to address the issues

raised in Isaac’s unamended § 2255 motion at this time in the light
3

of the possibility that the proceedings below may culminate in an

out-of-time appeal. See Mack v. Smith, 659 F.2d 23, 25-26 (1981).

VACATED and REMANDED.
NOTE FORGIVENESS


 




EXHIBIT 10.18

























NOTE FORGIVENESS




For value received, the undersigned DOMINICK A. TELESCO (the "Lender"), hereby forgives all principal and interest due under that certain Recourse Negotiable Promissory Note dated November 18, 2016 in the principal amount of $25,000 from Puradyn Filter Technologies Incorporated (the "Borrower"), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by such reference (the "Note").  The Lender hereby confirms that (a) this document memorializes his prior oral forgiveness of the Note effective November 18, 2016 (the "Effective Date"), (b) the Lender never made any demands to the Borrower for payment of all or any portion of the Note, and the Note was never in default under its terms, and (c) such Note and any and all rights of the Lender thereunder have not been sold, transferred, hypothecated or otherwise assigned to any third parties.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned as executed this Note Forgiveness on the 1st day of December, 2017.







		
	 
	 

	 
	Dominick A. Telesco
No. 68489.

protests 299541-K, etc. (New York).

#### Gloria Gloves, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of gloves of synthetic textile similar in use to silk gloves and following the principles set forth in *United States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 CCPA 47, C.A.D. 727), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 69305.

#### Weather-Rite Sportswear Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 64/25011, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Nichols, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of articles of synthetic rubber similar in all material *432respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Weather-Rite Sportswear Co., Inc.*(52 CCPA —, C.A.D. 848), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 10797)

#### Household Mfg. Co. Globe Shipping Co., Inc. v.United States

Entry No. 1047614, etc.

*382(Decided August 19, 1964)

*Stem é ShostaJc*for tlie plaintiffs.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for tlie defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for tbe respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated on the attached Schedule A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, consists of kitchen sets, fry pans, etc.

> 2. That at the time of exportation of the instant merchandise to the United States, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for export to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the invoiced unit values, ex factory.

> 3. That the merchandise and issues involved herein are similar in all material respects to those in *Household Mfg.*Co. v. *United States,*49 Cust. Ct. 482, Reap. Dec. 10393 and that the records in said cases may be incorporated with the record herein.

> 4. That all the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement was entered subsequent to February 27,1958.

> 5. That the merchandise the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule A is not included on the list of articles designated by the Secretary of the Treasury in T.D. 54521, as provided for in Section 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress, and that the said merchandise is subject to appraisement under See. 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

> 6. That the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule A may be deemed submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here in question and that such values for the merchandise covered by the involved appeals are the invoiced unit values, ex-factory.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case r

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

VINCENT DANIEL HOPPER a/k/a ANTOLIN MARKS

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

MICHAEL MELENDEZ

CASE NUMBER: C05-5680RBL

 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried

and the jury has rendered its verdict.

 XX Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been

tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

 IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

This action is DISMISSED. Plaintiff claims relating to contact with consulates and prospective

attorneys are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Plaintiff’s claims relating to contact with counsel for the purpose of his ongoing deportation case

are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as the claims implicate the propriety of the decision to

incarcerate and deport the plaintiff.

 November 19, 2007 BRUCE RIFKIN 

Date Clerk

 s/CM Gonzalez 

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:05-cv-05680-RBL Document 189 Filed 11/19/07 Page 1 of 1
From: magmag@stargate.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:15:58 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,

David Lytle

Cabot, PA 16023
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-16-00364-CV

J. E. and D. C. a/k/a D. W., Appellants

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY, 428TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 2015-1454, HONORABLE WILLIAM R. HENRY, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellants J.E. and D.C. a/k/a D.W., have filed an unopposed motion to dismisstheir

appeal of the district court’s orderterminating their parental rights. We grant appellants’ motion and

dismiss the appeal.1

__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Field

Dismissed on Appellants’ Motion

Filed: July 29, 2016

 See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). 1