alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit
      32**





CERTIFICATIONS
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Argyle Security Acquisition Corporation
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
      undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best
      of
      the undersigned’s knowledge:




(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 result of operations of the Company for the period
      certified.





Signed
      on
      this 30 th day of
      March, 2006




/s/
      Bob Marbut


Bob
      Marbut


Co-Chief
      Executive Officer





/s/
      Ron Chaimovski


Ron
      Chaimovski


Co-Chief
      Executive Officer
Comment Info: ================= General Comment:Dear sir or madam, please see the attached documents requesting FAA section 333 petition. Respectully, Bryan Archer President Galaxy Aviation Inc.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.2


         I, Donald E. Frederick, do hereby certify that the following resolution
was duly adopted by the Board of Directors of ADFlex Solutions, Inc. at a duly
convened meeting on October 21, 1997, and that such resolution is in full force
and effect and has not been amended or modified.

         FURTHER RESOLVED, that each officer and director of the Corporation who
may be required to execute the S-3 Registration Statement is hereby authorized
and directed to execute a special power of attorney appointing Rolando C.
Esteverena, Donald E. Frederick and R. Charles Furniss each as the officer's or
director's true and lawful attorney and agent, with the limited authority to
sign as a director and/or officer the S-3 Registration Statement, and any and
all amendments thereto and all instruments necessary or incidental in connection
therewith, and to file the same with the SEC, the National Association of
Securities Dealers ("NASD") and such other governmental authorities or
self-regulatory organizations as they deem necessary or advisable.


         Dated: October 21, 1997
                                                /s/ Donald E. Frederick
                                                -------------------------------
                                                Donald E. Frederick, Secretary
**Exhibit 32**

**FORM OF CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

In connection with the Annual Report of ParamountAcquisition Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the dateindicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operation of theCompany.
| Date: April 2, 2007 |
|---------------------|
|                | /s/ J. JAY LOBELL |   |
|                | Name: J. Jay Lobell |
|                | Title: Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive  Officer and Principal Accounting and Financial Officer) |

 

----
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 1517

GABRIEL ISMAEL GUTIERREZ MEJIA , Petitioner ,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR , Attorney General , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : October 22, 2020 Decided: November 10, 2020

Before AGEE, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Gabriel Ismael Gutierrez Mejia , Petitioner Pro Se

. Allison Frayer, Lori B. Warlick , Office of Immigration Litigation , Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Gabriel Ismael Gutierr ez Mejia, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his application for deferral of removal

under the Convention Agains t Torture. We have reviewed the administrative record and conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency ’ s factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) , and that substantial evidence supports the denial of relief, see INS v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992)

. We therefore deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. In re Gutierrez Mejia (B.I.A. Apr. 15, 2020). We dispense w ith oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
# Official Journal L 272/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 272 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6319 August 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 272

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6319 August 2020

---

| Contents | | Corrigenda | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Corrigendum to definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2020/1078 of amending budget No 4 of the European Union for the financial year 2020 ( OJ L 254, 4.8.2020 ) | 1 |

Contents

Corrigenda

page

*

Corrigendum to definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2020/1078 of amending budget No 4 of the European Union for the financial year 2020 ( OJ L 254, 4.8.2020 )

( OJ L 254, 4.8.2020 )

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4388

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus DARREN OLIVER ROBINSON, a/k/a Stretch, a/k/a Desaun Talib Bethel, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, District Judge. (CR-04-52) Submitted: July 13, 2005 Decided: July 28, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jacqueline Ann Hallinan, HALLINAN LAW OFFICES, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas Edward Johnston, United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).1 See Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(2) (providing that intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays are excluded when period is less than eleven days).
2 The notice of appeal was date stamped and entered by the district court on April 6, 2005, but the notice also contained a second date stamp reflecting a date of April 4, 2005, thereby suggesting Robinson had delivered it to prison officials for mailing prior to the expiration of the thirty-day excusable neglect period. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Darren Oliver Robinson seeks to appeal his conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and his 202- month sentence of imprisonment. In criminal cases, the defendant must file an appeal within ten days of the entry of judgment or the notice of appeal by the government. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). When a notice of appeal is filed within thirty days of the expiration of the appeal period, the district court may grant an extension, with or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes , 759 F.2d 351, 352-53 (4th Cir. 1985). The district court entered its judgment on February 16, 2005. Under Rule 4(b)(1)(A), Robinson had ten days, or until March 3, 2005, to file a notice of appeal. 1Under Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988), the notice of appeal was filed on April 4, 2005, which was after the ten-day period expired but within the thirty-day excusable neglect period. 2 Because the notice of appeal was filed within the excusable neglect period, we remand the case- 3 - to the district court for the court to determine whether Robinson has shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the ten-day appeal period. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration. We also defer ruling on the United States’ motion to dismiss the appeal pending the district court’s determination. 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.

REMANDED
<PAGE>   1
=============================================================================

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20579

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

                                    FORM 8-K
                                 CURRENT REPORT

     Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934


      Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported) September 17, 1997


                          SPEEDFAM INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                          ----------------------------
              (EXACT NAME OF REGISTRANT AS SPECIFIED IN ITS CHARTER)


        Illinois                0-26784                 36-2421613
--------------------  --------------------------   ---------------------
(STATE OR OTHER        (COMMISSION FILE NUMBER)      (IRS EMPLOYER
 JURISDICTION OF                                    IDENTIFICATION NO.) 
 INCORPORATION)


305 North 54th Street, Chandler, Arizona                  85226
----------------------------------------               ------------
(ADDRESS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICES)                (ZIP CODE)


       Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (602)705-2100


=============================================================================
<PAGE>   2
ITEM 5. OTHER EVENTS

Pursuant to Instruction F to Form 8-K, the information contained in the press
release filed as Exhibit 99.1 hereto is hereby incorporated by reference in
answer to Item 5 of this Form 8-K.

ITEM 7. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, PRO FORMA FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND EXIBITS

        99.1 Press Release, dated September 17, 1997.






                                      -2-
<PAGE>   3
                                   SIGNATURE

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized.


                                 SPEEDFAM INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                                         
                                 By: /s/ Roger K. Marach
                                     ------------------------
                                 Name:  Roger K. Marach
                                 Title: Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer

Date: September 17, 1997


                                      -3-
<PAGE>   4
                                 EXHIBIT INDEX


       EXHIBIT                                       DESCRIPTION
       -------                                       -----------

        99.1                         Press Release, dated September 17, 1997.
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 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JON MELVIN MOULD,

Plaintiff,

v.

HERITAGE BANK,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5348FDB

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff has filed a document entitled “Commercial Notice of Amended Complaint Bill in

Equity” as his means for opening this cause of action. Plaintiff cites to his own affidavit as

conferring jurisdiction on this Court and refers therein to an agreement that he had with Heritage

Bank. Plaintiff indicates that Heritage Bank has not been responsive to his “Petition for Agreement

and Harmony in the nature of a Notice of International Commercial Claim.” The Court cannot

discern from Plaintiff’s documents a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. 

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED: This cause of action is DISMISSED for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. 

DATED this 18th day of July, 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05358-FDB Document 2 Filed 07/18/06 Page 1 of 1
Before the First Division,

June 20, 1951

No. 55671.

protests 157124-K and 151431-K (San Francisco).

#### Sebastiano Darini and Fiedler & Panietz *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6254

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee,

v. DARROL J. HARRISON, a/k/a Big D, Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, Chief District Judge. (2:92-cr-00446-DCN-1)

Submitted: September 29, 2009 Decided: October 5, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darrol J. Harrison, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Thomas Phillips, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Darrol J. Harrison appeals from the district court’s order granting in part his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006), but denying his motion to the extent that Harrison sought a resentencing. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United

States v. Harrison , No. 2:92-cr-00446-DCN-1 (D.S.C. Jan. 27, 2009); see United States v. Dunphy , 551 F.3d 247, 257 (4th Cir. 2009). We deny Harrison’s motions for appointment of counsel and for an extension of time and 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
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

600 TP 11-02389 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF MICAIAH ALLEN, PETITIONER,

V ORDER

HAROLD D. GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT, AUBURN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, RESPONDENT.

MICAIAH ALLEN, PETITIONER PRO SE.
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (MARCUS J. MASTRACCO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County [Mark H. Fandrich, A.J.], entered November 17, 2011) to review a determination of respondent. The determination found after a Tier II hearing that petitioner had violated various inmate rules.
It is hereby ORDERED that said proceeding is unanimously dismissed without costs as moot ( see Matter of Free v Coombe , 234 AD2d 996).

Entered: June 8, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
AFS-13-253-E April 19, 2013

Exemption No. 10750 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0202

Ms. Suzanne Dickerson Parent of Ryan Dickerson

5612 Darmondale San Antonio, TX 78261

Dear Ms. Dickerson:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and lists the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter received October 25, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Ryan Dickerson for an exemption from § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Ryan to exceed the specified weight limit for an FAA-approved child restraint system (CAReS, manufactured by AmSafe Corporation) during use of that child restraint system (CRS) aboard a United States (U.S.) aircraft.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Ryan.2

The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9834 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that numerous people with physical challenges had previously completed flights using restraint systems that addressed unique physical needs regarding safety, support, and security in the same manner of operations as described in this petition. The FAA further found that the petition, if granted, would not set any new precedents regarding the use of restraint systems by persons with disabilities.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed grant.

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemption also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Ryan Dickerson exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B). In addition, any air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 121 while Ryan is aboard its aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) to the extent necessary to allow Ryan to exceed the specified weight limit for an FAA-approved CRS during use of that CRS aboard a U.S. aircraft.

All operations under this exemption must be conducted with at least one of Ryan’s parents or a caregiver accompanying him. Ryan Dickerson may only occupy a passenger seat with no passenger seated behind him. In addition, Ryan’s parent or caregiver must carry a copy of this exemption and advise the air carrier about the contents of the exemption at least 48 hours before the date of each flight.

This exemption terminates on April 30, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John M. Allen Director, Flight Standards Service

Enclosure
Exhibit 32.1

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

The
undersigned, Ross Lavnikevich, the President and Chief Executive Officer of
iGenii, Inc. (the Company), certifies, under the standards set forth and
solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-K fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Dated: March
31, 2009

|                                              |                      | 
|--------------------------------------------- | -------------------- | 
|By:                                           | /s/ Ross Lavnikevich | 
|                                              |                      | 
|Name: Ross Lavnikevich                       
|                                             
|Title:
 President and Chief Executive Officer
|(Principal Executive Officer)                

---
Case No. 8,270.

#### LE ROY et al. v. DELAWARE INS. CO.

[2 Wash. C. C. 223.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. Term, 1808.

Practice at Law — New Count in Declaration —Continuance — After Commission to Take Testimony, New Witness Pound — Surprise.

1. Where the plaintiffs had filed a new count to their declaration, to which no plea had been entered, the court granted a continuance of the cause.

2. The plaintiffs issued a commission to take testimony abroad, and the defendant joined in the *373same, by filing cross-interrogatories; but the plaintiffs afterwards found a witness to prove the facts they desired to establish by the commission, and abandoned it. The court said, a trial under these circumstances, would be a surprise on the defendant.

Motion by defendant to continue the cause, upon the ground, that —e plaintiffs had taken out a commission in this cause, and in another of Gernport v. Union Ins. Co. [unreported], on the same risk; which latter depositions, it had been agreed on record, should be read in this action. Those commissions had not been returned, and were in fact abandoned by the plaintiffs, in consequence of their having, accidentally and lately, discovered, in this place, a witness to serve their purpose. But the defendants, who had joined in putting interrogatories under the above commission, depended upon the evidence to be received under them; and were taken entirely by surprise. Another reason was, that about twelve or eighteen, months ago, the plaintiffs, after the plea of non infrigit, &e. pleaded, obtained leave to add a new one of barratry, to which amended declaration, no new plea had been put in; of course, the cause was not ready for trial.

1

 [Originally published from the MSS. of Hon. Bushrod Washington, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, under the supervision of Bichard Peters, Jr., Esq.]

BY THE COURT.

The defendants would certainly be taken by surprise, if the cause were now to be brought on. But the other reason cannot be got over. The defendants should have pleaded anew, after the declaration was amended. Let the cause be continued, and an eight day rule to plead be given.