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

                  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                             CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 Buyonate, Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 2009, I 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:

     (1)  the annual Report on Form 10-K of Buyonate, 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

     (2)  the information contained in the annual Report on Form 10-K for the
          year ended December 31, 2009, fairly presents in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
          Buyonate, Inc.


By: /s/ Husni Hassadiyeh
   ------------------------------------------------------------
Name:  Husni Hassadiyeh
Title: Principal Executive Officer and Director

Date: March 23, 2010


By: /s/ Inbar Kuta
   ------------------------------------------------------------
Name:  Inbar Kuta
Title: Principal Executive Officer, Principal Accounting
       Officer and Director

Date: March 23, 2010
No. 58332.

protests 189774—K, etc. (New York).

#### Otto Roth & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cheese the same in all material respects as that passed upon in Abstract 56940, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT32.1


CERTIFICATION




Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350,


Chapter
63 of Title 18, United States Code)




Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Smart Balance, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
“Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:




The
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the “Form
10-K/A”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in the
Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.




Date:
      July 29, 2009
                By:
                
                /s/          
      Stephen B. HughesStephen
      B. HughesChairman
      of the Board and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      executive officer)




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.
Case Mo. 6,672.

#### HOE et al. v. COLE et al.

[The ease reported under above title in 13 O. G. 500, is the same as Case No. 6,573.]
March 20, 1962

No. 66602.

#### Cajo Trading, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 61/9488, etc.

Protests dismissed February 23, 1962. (Not published.) Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
Case 3:06-cv-05365-RJB Document 34 Filed 05/02/07 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:06-cv-05365-RJB Document 34 Filed 05/02/07 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:06-cv-05365-RJB Document 34 Filed 05/02/07 Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THERMOTREX
CORPORATION'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 28, 1996
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1996
<CASH>                                          43,940
<SECURITIES>                                    51,701
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,201
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,586
<INVENTORY>                                     37,303
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               184,334
<PP&E>                                          40,535
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,031
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 320,222
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,471
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           192
<OTHER-SE>                                     204,887
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   320,222
<SALES>                                        169,669
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               182,029
<CGS>                                          101,967
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  112,245
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,986
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   336
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 464
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 48,292
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,341
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             42,575
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    42,575
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.16
        




</TABLE>
No. 64553.

#### Crown Importers et al. *v.*United States,

protests 738205-G, etc. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### MORRIS LAW OFFICE, P.C., a Virginia Professional Corporation, Plaintiff—Appellee, and Tee Engineering Company, Incorporated, a Kentucky Corporation, Defendant—Appellee, v. James Eddie TATUM; Ann Tatum, Defendants—Appellants.

No. 05-1241.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 15, 2005.

Decided Aug. 24, 2005.

James Eddie Tatum and Ann Tatum, Appellants Pro Se. Walton Davis Morris, Jr., Charlottesville, Virginia, Peter Booth Vaden, Charlottesville, Virginia; David Brian Rubinstein, Fredericksburg, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

*206PER CURIAM:

James Eddie Tatum and Ann Tatum appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting, in part, the Morris Law Office’s motion for summary judgment and Tee Engineering’s motion for summary judgment. We find that the Ta-tums failed to file timely objections to the magistrate judge’s report and have therefore waived appellate review of the substance of the recommendation. *See Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 155, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); *Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985). Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court. 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.

*AFFIRMED*
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.

JASON B. TIFFIN,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR06-5352FDB

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

DATE 

Based on the stipulated motion of the parties to continue the trial date, and the

affidavit of defense counsel in support of the motion, the Court makes the following

findings of fact and conclusions of law:

1. The ends of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best

interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A). 

2. Proceeding to trial absent adequate time for the defense to prepare would

result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(B)(I). 

3. The defense needs additional time to explore issues of some complexity,

including all relevant issues and defenses applicable to the case, which would make it

unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for trial itself

within the time limits established by the Speedy Trial Act and currently set for this case. 

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B(ii). 

4. Taking into account the exercise of due diligence, a continuance is necessary

to allow the defendant the reasonable time for effective preparation his defense. 18

Case 3:06-cr-05352-BHS Document 20 Filed 07/05/06 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

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). 

NOW, THEREFORE,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial date is continued from July 31, 2006, to

November 27, 2006, at 9:00 am. The resulting period of delay from July 31, 2006, up to

and including the new trial date of November 27, 2006, is hereby excluded for speedy

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

Pre-trial motions are due no later than September 18, 2006.

DONE this 5th day of July, 2006. 

A

FRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented By:

/s/ /s/ 

Russell V. Leonard William H. Redkey, Jr. 

Attorney for Defendant Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:06-cr-05352-BHS Document 20 Filed 07/05/06 Page 2 of 2
Before the Second Division,

April 4, 1957

No. 60602.

#### Sintered Carbide Corp. and Airport Clearance Service et al. *v.*United States,

protests 253678-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the tungsten carbide bars the subject of Abstract 58268, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Case 3:06-cv-05369-RBL Document 13 Filed 02/27/07 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:06-cv-05369-RBL Document 13 Filed 02/27/07 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:06-cv-05369-RBL Document 13 Filed 02/27/07 Page 3 of 3
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

DATE..................1

JUDGE: BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) NO. CR06-5352FDB

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED

v. ) MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

) DATE

JASON B. TIFFIN, )

)

Defendant. )

 )

Based on the stipulated motion of the parties to continue the trial date, and the affidavit of

defense counsel in support of the motion, and the defendant’s signed waiver of speedy trial through

February 28, 2007, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

1. The ends of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interest of the

public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A).

2. Proceeding to trial absent adequate time for the defense to prepare would result in a

miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(I).

3. The defense needs additional time to explore issues of some complexity, including all

relevant issues and defenses applicable to the case, which would make it unreasonable to expect

adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for trial itself within the time limits established by

the Speedy Trial Act and currently set for this case. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(80(B)(ii).

Case 3:06-cr-05352-BHS Document 41 Filed 11/15/06 Page 1 of 2
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

DATE..................2

4. Taking into account the exercise of due diligence, a continuance is necessary to allow the

defendant the reasonable time for effective preparation for his defense. 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(B)(iv).

NOW, THEREFORE,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial date in this case is continued from November 27,

2006 to February 20, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. The resulting period of delay from November 27, 2006, up

to and including the new trial date of February 20, 2007, is hereby excluded for speedy trial purposes

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

Pre-trial motions are due on later than December 20, 2006. 

DONE this 15th day of November, 2006. 

A

JUDGE FRANKLIN D BURGESS

United States District Judge

Presented by: Telephonically approved by:

/S/ Ronald D. Ness /s/ William H. Redkey, Jr. 

Attorney for Defendant Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:06-cr-05352-BHS Document 41 Filed 11/15/06 Page 2 of 2
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case r

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

RONALD JACKSON

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

SGT. WILLIAMS, et al.,

CASE NUMBER: C05-5794FDB

 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;

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED; and

Plaintiff’s causes of action are DISMISSED; and plaintiff’s pending motions, if any, are denied as

being moot.

 March 8, 2007 BRUCE RIFKIN 

Clerk

 s/CM Gonzalez 

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:05-cv-05794-FDB Document 35 Filed 03/08/07 Page 1 of 1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         October 5, 2023.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 25, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage*                    ®                     *Contract 67 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2023-282, CP2023-285.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2023-22139 Filed 10-4-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
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

RICHARD ROY SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

AL NERIO et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5340RJB

ORDER

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge

pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Magistrates' Rules MJR 1, MJR 3, and

MJR 4. Plaintiff has clarified that he wishes to serve his complaint despite his being granted in forma

pauperis status. (Dkt. # 7). The clerks office is directed to send Mr. Scott a filled out summons for each

defendant named in this action. 

Plaintiff will have 120 days from the date of this order to perfect service.

DATED this 22nd day of August, 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05340-RJB Document 9 Filed 08/22/06 Page 1 of 1
The State of /s



# Fourth **Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas** 

March 24, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00551

- CV

Pablo SOLIZ

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Brooks County, Texas Trial Court No. 14

- 02

- 16542

- CV David Wellington Chew, Judge Presi ding



### ORDER

Appellant’s motion for leave to file an amended brief is granted. The court will not grant leave for appellant to further supplement or amend his brief in the absence of a court order or extraordinary circumstances.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 24th day of March, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
I. INTRODUCTION

Since the advent of white man, biotic conditions in Crater Lake National Park have been modified considerably fromthose of its primeval state. A return toward primeval conditions recently has become a goal of Park management policy.Thus, knowing what types of changes white man's influence has wrought, and where (and when possible, why) thesehave occurred, has become of great importance to the Park managers. In 1976-77 we conducted a study of the lodgepolepine forests, with the goal of providing this information. We described the state of present lodgepole forests, andgathered evidence for the importance of several processes which affect its characteristics. We attempted to establish whatthe primeval forest structure was, to infer the changes since white man arrived, to determine what caused these changes,to predict the future course of forest development, and thereby to suggest the appropriate ways to return these forests totheir primeval condition.

Lodgepole pine occurs throughout much of the Park. Areas included in our study were those in which lodgepolecomprises more than 50% of the tree layer. We find that the lodgepole pine forest is more complex than we anticipated,with several distinct types of ecosystems represented. The different lodgepole communities have different histories,futures, and environments. Likewise, management policy will need to vary with the forest type. The model for managingforests of ponderosa pine is inappropriate except for a minority of the lodgepole forest. Some lodgepole communitieshave changed little, and most altered communities will return toward their primeval state without any positive action ofmanagement, given a natural fire policy.

Our conclusions have been based on a combination of appropriate information from the literature and on our descriptionof the forests at Crater Lake. The details and our conclusions about all but the management procedures are presented inR. S. Zeigler. 1978. The vegetation dynamics of Pinus contorta forest, Crater Lake National Park, Oregon. MastersThesis, Oregon State University. 182 p. Copies of the thesis have been presented to the Park Service.

A summary of the information from the thesis upon which we based our suggestions for management is presented in thisreport, along with those suggested procedures and a map of the management units for which each is appropriate. Ininstances where information from the literature or our data is incomplete or even conflicting, what we present hererepresents what we believe to be the most probable case. Evidence and argument for many of these points are presentedby Zeigler (1978).

http://www.nps.gov/crla/lodgepole/lodgepole1.htmDate: 29-May-2001

CRATER LAKEReport: Lodgepole Pine—History and Management

<<< PREVIOUS CONTENTS NEXT >>>

Page 1 of 1Crater Lake NP: Lodgepole Pine: History and Management

11/29/2011http://web.archive.org/web/20081009013857/http://www.nps.gov/archive/crla/lodgepole/lodgepole1.htm
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

DAVID G. TAYLOR,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF WASHINGTON 

Respondent.

Case No. C06-5257FDB

 ORDER TO AMEND

This habeas corpus petition has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant

to Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Magistrates' Rules MJR 3 and MJR

4. Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. # 5). 

Petitioner names only the State of Washington as a Respondent. 28 U.S.C. § 2243 indicates that

writs are to be directed “to the person having custody of the person detained”. This person typically

is the superintendent of the facility in which the petitioner is incarcerated. Failure to name the

petitioner's custodian deprives federal courts of personal jurisdiction. Stanley v. California Supreme

Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Petitioner is ordered to file an amended petition or a motion to change the case caption

Case 3:06-cv-05257-FDB Document 8 Filed 05/31/06 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

naming the superintendent of his current detention facility. The new petition or motion must be filed

on of before June 23rd, 2006 or the court will recommend dismissal of this petition on jurisdictional

grounds.

The clerk is ordered to send copies of this order to the petitioner and to note this matter for

the courts June 23rd, 2006 calendar.

DATED this 26th day of May, 2006. 

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05257-FDB Document 8 Filed 05/31/06 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 13,591.

#### SUFFOLK BANK v. MERRILL.

[Cited in Case of Snow, Case No. 13.143. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]