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


Certification of the Chief Executive Officer


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


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


In connection with the Annual Report of American Apparel, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on March 31, 2010, as amended by Amendment Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as filed with the SEC on April 29, 2010, Amendment No. 4 as filed with the SEC on February 7, 2010 and Amendment No. 5 as filed with the SEC on the date hereof (collectively, the “Report”), I, Dov Charney, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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.

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                    
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.




Date:May 16, 2011By:/s/ DOVCHARNEYDov CharneyChief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Virage Logic Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Christine Russell, Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer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 as of and for the dates presented.



|                                                                    
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Christine Russell                                               
|Christine Russell                                                   
|Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
|August 8, 2007
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Virage Logic Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Brian Sereda, Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer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 as of and for the dates presented.



|                                                                    
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    Brian Sereda                                                 
|Brian Sereda                                                        
|Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
|August 9, 2010
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 23, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136139 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 136139 

 COA: 279236 

Genesee CC: 05-016313-FC 

BRENDA SUE DRAYTON,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 6, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l0616 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

June 23, 2008 

 Clerk
Exhibit 13.1

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), each of the
undersigned officers of Genesys, a Frenchsociété anonyme(the "Company"), does hereby certify to such officer's knowledge
that:

The
Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Form 20-F") 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 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

|Dated May 2, 2005 |  |     |                                                                       
|----------------- |  | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                  |  | By: | /s/FRANÇOIS LEGROSFrançois Legros
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|Dated May 2, 2005 |  |     |                                                                       
|                  |  | By: | /s/MICHAEL E. SAVAGEMichael E. Savage
Chief Financial Officer         

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Genesys and will be retained by Genesys and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
No. 57566.

#### American Mink Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 110240-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of platinum fox fur skins, undressed, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. O. *Brager-Larsen*(36 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 388). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was therefore sustained.
November 26, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

REGINALD KEITH BANKS, Appellant

NO. 14-13-00971-CR

NO. 14-13-00972-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The 

record indicates that the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the 

appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
EXHIBIT 32.1



WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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



The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Global Imaging Systems, Inc. (the
Company), each hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



| | (a) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                 |  | 
|---------------- |  | 
|November 7, 2003 |  | 
|                 |  | 
|Date             |  | 
|                 |  | 
|November 7, 2003 |  | 
|                 |  | 
|Date             |  | 



The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document. This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (Exchange Act) or otherwise subject to liability under that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act except to the extent
this Exhibit 32.1 is expressly and specifically incorporated by reference in any such filing.



A signed original of this statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Global Imaging Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Global Imaging Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 52485.

protests 119084-K., etc. (Los Angeles, etc.).

#### American Cyanamid & Chemical Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 58862.

protests 175542-K and 184040-K (Boston).

#### Caron Spinning Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

It was stipulated that for duty purposes the clean content of the wool in question was determined in accordance with the instructions contained in T. D. 53159, which was issued following *United States*v. *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 19, C. A. D. 492). In that case, it was held that the statutory language, clean content of wool, as used in paragraph 1102 (b), was construed to mean the product commercially usable as wool and from which all the weight of grease and foreign material has been removed, including the wool fibers which are unavoidably and irrevocably lost as a result of commercially applied cleaning processes. Accordingly, the wool in question was held dutiable at the rate applied by the collector on the basis of the percentages of clean content as set forth in the column headed “T. D. 53159 Glean Content percent” in the schedule attached to and made a part of the decision in this case.
Exhibit
32.1




SECTION
906 CERTIFICATION




The
undersigned hereby certifies that the Annual Report on From 10-K of Israel
Growth Partners Acquisition Corp. (the “Registrant”) for the fiscal year ended
July 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of the
Registrant.




Dated:
      December 2, 2009
            
            /s/ J. Patrick McMahonJ.
      Patrick McMahonChief
      Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Salem Communications Corporation (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, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  · the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated: November 9, 2009By: /s/ EVAN D. MASYREvan D. MasyrSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer     1
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

962 

KA 11-01660 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STANLEY A. KAMINSKI, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO, ESQS., SYRACUSE (BRADLEY E. KEEM OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

GREGORY S. OAKES, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, OSWEGO (COURTNEY E. PETTIT OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Oswego County Court (Walter W.

Hafner, Jr., J.), rendered May 13, 2011. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon a jury verdict, of aggravated unlicensed operation of

a motor vehicle in the first degree and driving while ability

impaired. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon a jury verdict of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor

vehicle in the first degree (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [3] [a])

and driving while ability impaired (§ 1192 [1]). As defendant

correctly concedes, he failed to preserve for our review his

contention that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient

evidence (see People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61, rearg denied 97 NY2d

678). In any event, that contention lacks merit (see generally People

v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). In addition, viewing the evidence in

light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People

v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we conclude that the verdict is not

against the weight of the evidence (see generally Bleakley, 69 NY2d at

495).

Defendant’s contention that he was deprived of effective

assistance of counsel based on defense counsel’s failure to call a

certain witness to testify at trial or to seek an adjournment in order

to call that witness at trial is based on matters outside the record

on appeal, and thus the proper procedural vehicle for raising that

contention is by way of a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 (see People v

Wittman, 103 AD3d 1206, 1206-1207, lv denied 21 NY3d 915; People v

King, 90 AD3d 1533, 1534, lv denied 18 NY3d 959). Moreover, inasmuch

as “the evidence is legally sufficient to support defendant’s
-2- 962 

KA 11-01660 

conviction . . . , it cannot be said that defense counsel’s failure to

renew the motion for a trial order of dismissal constitutes

ineffective assistance of counsel” (People v Pytlak, 99 AD3d 1242,

1243, lv denied 20 NY3d 988; see generally People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143,

152).

Entered: September 27, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7233

JOHN DOUGLAS ALEXANDER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOHN DOE, Republic Tobacco Company; JOHN DOE,

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-97-2786-6-20)

Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 23, 1999

Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Douglas Alexander, Appellant Pro Se. William Alexander

Coates, LOVE, THORNTON, ARNOLD & THOMASON, Greenville, South Carolina; Lewis Walter Tollison, III, Rivers Samuel Stilwell, NELSON,

MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

John Douglas Alexander appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Alexander v. Doe, No. CA-97-2786-6-20 (D.S.C.

July 28, 1998). 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
STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

DARRYL SARTAIN

lROMM

NO. 2024 KW 0285

MAY 20, 2024

In Re: Darryl Sartain, applying for supervisory writs, 22nd

Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany, No. 

2254- F- 2021. 

BEFORE: McCLENDON, HESTER, AND MILLER, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED ON THE SHOWING MADE. Relator fails to include

the application for postconviction relief, the State' s answer, 

if any, the bill of information, the Boykin transcript, 

pertinent district court minutes, and any other portions of the

district court record that might support the claims raised in

the writ application. Supplementation of this writ application

and/ or an application for rehearing will not be considered. See

Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rules 2- 18. 7 & 4- 9. 

In the event relator elects to file a new application with this

court, he may do so without the necessity of obtaining a return

date. Any future filing on this issue should include the entire

contents of this application, the missing items noted above, and

a copy of this ruling. 

PMC

CHH

SMM

RT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

I

EPUTY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules Docket No. AD12-6-000

NOTICE OF STAFF MEMORANDUM

(October 18, 2012)

Take notice that the Commission staff is issuing a memorandum setting forth certain 

minor revisions to the Commission’s Natural Gas Pipeline regulations that may be appropriate 

to remove reporting requirements that may no longer serve their intended purpose. The 

memorandum was issued pursuant to the Nov. 8, 2011 Plan for Retrospective Analysis of 

Existing Rules prepared in response to Executive Order 13579, which requested independent 

regulatory agencies issue plans for periodic retrospective analysis of their existing regulations. 

The Staff Memorandum is being placed in the record in the above-referenced

administrative docket. The Staff Memorandum will also be available on the Commission’s 

website at http://www.ferc.gov.

Comments on the Staff Memorandum should be filed within 30 days of the issuance of 

this Notice. The Commission encourages electronic submission of comments in lieu of paper

using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should 

submit an original of the comment to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 

Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426.

All filings in this docket are accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

“eLibrary” link. There is an “eSubscription” link on the web site that enables

subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket. For 

assistance with any FERC Online service, please email FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call 

(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659. 

Questions regarding this Notice should be directed to:

Christy Walsh

Office of the General Counsel

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888 First Street, N.E.

Washington, DC 20426

202-502-6523

Christy.Walsh@ferc.gov

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed July 10, 2024.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1623

Lower Tribunal No. 14-31340

________________

Evelyn Martinez, et al.,

Appellants,

vs.

Selene Finance LP,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose M. 

Rodriguez, Judge.

Pomeranz & Associates, P.A., and Mark L. Pomeranz (Hallandale), for 

appellants.

Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane & Partners, PLLC and David 

Rosenberg (Boca Raton), for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See § 673.3081(1), Fla. Stat. (2022); Bennett v. Deutsche 
2

Bank Nat. Tr. Co., 124 So. 3d 320, 323 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (holding that 

plaintiff bank was entitled to rely on presumption that signature on 

indorsements was authentic as provided in section 673.3081(1) in absence 

of evidentiary showing by defendants to support their claim that signature 

was unauthorized); accord Selim v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2023 WL 

5731201, *1, 48 Fla. L. Weekly D1790 (Fla. 3d DCA Sept. 6, 2023); Barsan 

v. Trinity Fin. Servs., LLC, 258 So. 3d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); see also G & 

G In-Between Bridge Club Corp. v. Palm Plaza Assoc., 356 So. 3d 292, 299 

(Fla. 2d DCA 2023) (explaining that under Florida’s “new” summary 

judgment standard, when plaintiff moves for summary judgment on its 

claims, defendant bears initial burden of showing affirmative defense applies 

because defendant bears burden of proof on affirmative defense at trial); 

Chowdhury v. BankUnited, N.A., 366 So. 3d 1130, 1133 n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 

2023) (holding that under “new” summary judgment standard defendant bore 

burden of showing affirmative defense applied and precluded summary 

judgment (citing id. at 299–300)).
|                    |  |  |  |              |  | 
|------------------- |  |  |  | ------------ |  | 
|PC Connection, Inc. |  |  |  | Exhibit 10.1



730 Milford
Road

Merrimack, NH 03054-4631

Main: 603/423-2000

www.pcconnection.com

October 9, 2001

Mr. Brad Mousseau

Vice President of Human Resources

PC Connection, Inc.

730 Milford Road

Merrimack, New Hampshire 03054

Dear Brad:

First of all, I would like to thank you for your continuing efforts in leading our Human Resources function in this time of challenge and change. Your experience, wisdom
and leadership are most appreciated. At this time, I would also like to summarize our severance package for so you that this question need not further linger in your mind.

In the event the company terminates your employment for any reason other than cause or change in control, your will receive six (6) months of severance pay at the base salary level then applicable to you. In the
event there is a change in control of the corporation (being defined as a change in ownership of more than 50 percent of the shares then outstanding), and your position is either eliminated or you are not offered a comparable position with
comparable responsibilities, compensation, and benefits, you shall receive twelve (12) months of severance pay at the base salary then applicable to you. Cause shall include, without limitation, failure to comply with rules, standards, or
procedures promulgated by the company; neglect of or substandard performance of your assigned responsibilities; breach of your terms of your Covenant Not to Compete and Disclose Confidential Information and Assignment of Rights document;
falsification of company records or documents; or any act of dishonestly or moral turpitude. A reorganization or modification of your duties would not constitute termination. Finally, this letter and severance package does not alter your status as
an at-will employee under New Hampshire law.

Brad, thanks again for your tremendous continuing contributions to the companys future success.

Yours truly,



|                                      
|--------------------------------------
|                                      
|/S/ KENNETH KOPPEL                    
|Kenneth Koppel Chief Executive
Officer



Acknowledged and agreed:/S/ BRAD MOUSSEAU



10/16/01Brad Mousseau



Date