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

 

**CERTIFICATIONS 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of American DefenseSystems, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30,2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), Anthony Piscitelli, Chief Executive Officer, Presidentand Chairman of the Company and Gary Sidorsky, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our best knowledge:

 

1.               The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: November 14,  2008 | By:    | /s/ Anthony  Piscitelli                          |
|-------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------|
|                          |   | Anthony  Piscitelli                              |
|                          |   | Chief Executive  Officer, President and Chairman |
|                          |   |                                             |
|                          |   |                                             |
|                          | By:    | /s/ Gary Sidorsky                                |
|                          |   | Gary Sidorsky                                    |
|                          |   | Chief Financial  Officer                         |

 

----
Date: /}V.JJ~Jbj; ."Jl&j 1({1, ~/ r- ~t- 3 .-Ji-prYJ 

Meeting: (Y1a._r..L0.-t kas-fvlf] _s. 

RuJe(s) Discussed: 0 d u.Nl Go.~ 

Written Materials? Yes® 

Name 

p JW( c JV.VA 1'f;~ 

Organization 

EPArYI aMkt \~ Cl ~h 'hw.s 

I 

(v\;1~(\MJv ~~ 

Phone Number 

d-Dd---3~3 -~f/S ~ 

h'crn 51~~ ·5DJ- S l&dx
No. 57350.

protest 200169-K (New York).

#### J. B. Wood Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Prom an examination of the papers in the case the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protest was therefore overruled.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETER A. TAYLOR,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0981 LKK KJM P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On April 10, 2006, petitioner filed a motion for

discovery concerning, among other things, a “no parole” policy he alleges is being implemented

by the California Board of Prison Terms. In this court’s March 14, 2006 order, petitioner was

told to refrain from filing this motion until after respondent files his answer. Good cause

appearing, petitioner’s April 10, 2006 motion for discovery is denied without prejudice to refiling

after respondent files his answer. 

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00981-LKK -KJM Document 26 Filed 05/02/06 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

2

Petitioner is cautioned that if he fails to follow court orders in the future he may

be sanctioned, possibly with dismissal of this action under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. 

DATED: May 2, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

tayl0981.dis

Case 2:04-cv-00981-LKK -KJM Document 26 Filed 05/02/06 Page 2 of 2
July 9 , 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

LESLIE WM. ADAMS & A SSOCIATES , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00458

- CV V.

WELDON S. GUEST AND REGENOSYS, INC. , Appellee s

________________________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on April 22, 2013. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellant, Leslie Wm. Adams & Associates. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14 -399V (Not to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* DANIELLE N. MEYER, * * Filed: December 1, 2015 Petitioner, * * Decision by Stipulation; Attorney’s

v. * Fees & Costs

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * HUMAN SERVICES, *

* Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Gregory F. Coleman, Greg Coleman Law, PC, Knoxville, TN, for Petitioner

Linda Renzi, U.S. Dep ’ t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent

ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS DECISION 1

On May 9, 2014, Danielle Meyer filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. On September 29, 2015 , the parties filed a stipulation detailing an amount to be awarded to Petitioner. I subsequently issued a decision finding the parties’ stipulation to be reasonable and granting Petitioner the award out lined by the stipulation.

On December 1, 2015, counsel for both parties filed another joint stipulation, this time in regards to attorney’s fees and costs. The parties have stipulated that Petitioner’s counsel should receive a lump sum of $56,000.00 , in the form of a check payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel. This amount represents a sum to which Respondent does not object. In addition, and in

1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my action in this case, I will post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E -Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107- 347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 2002) (current version at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2014)). As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)( 4)(B), however, the parties may object to the posted decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that p arty: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Ru le 18(b). Otherwise, the whole decision will be available to the public. ( Id. )compliance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner has represented that she did not incur any

reimbursable costs in proceeding on this petition.

I approve the requested amount for attorney’s fees and costs as reasonable. Accordingly, an award should be made in the form of a check in the amount of $56,000.00 payable jointly to

Petitioner and Petitioner’s co unsel, Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court SHALL ENTER JUDGME NT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation. 2



### IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing the ir right to seek review.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 03-1112.1 

________________________________________________________________________ 

PEACE CORPS 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and MEXICO 

Signed at Washington November 12, 2003 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
MEXICO 

Peace Corps 

 Agreement signed at Washington 

 November 12, 2003; 

 Entered into force November 12, 2003.
#### NORMAN B. SPRAGUE, Respondent, *v.*JAMES C. SWIFT, Appellant.

*Evidence*— the *payee of a note may testify as to personal 1/ransaetions had with a deceased maker of a joint and several Tiote, in an action against the other makes'*— *Code of Cml Procedure, sec.*829.

Appeal from an order made at Special Term denying a motion for a new trial made on a case and exceptions, after a judgment in favor of the plaintiff had been entered on a verdict rendered at the Erie Circuit. •

The action was upon a joint and several promissory note alleged to have been made by one Stilwell and the defendant. The defense was a denial of the execution of the note by defendant, and payment by Stilwell for whose accommodation the note was made. Stilwell died before the action was commenced.

. The court at General Term said: “ The plaintiff, to establish the issues on his part, was permitted as a witness in his own behalf to testify to transactions and conversations between himself and Stilwell. The defendant objected at the trial, and he now contends, that the plaintiff was incompetent to testify to those matters, under section 829 of the Code, on the ground that the defendant is sought to be charged in the action as the ‘survivor’ of Stilwell. The objection was properly overruled. The defendant is not a ‘ survivor’ within the meaning of the section. As the note sued on was several as well as joint he was liable to a separate action as well before as after the death of Stilwell.”

*Osgoodby, Titus <& Moot,*for the appellant.

*Lewis & Lice,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Smith, P. J.;

Hardin, J., concurred; Haight, J., not sitting.

Order affirmed.
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8308 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 18 (legislative day, DECEMBER 16), 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 

2003. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HR 8308 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Nutria Eradication 

3 and Control Reauthorization Act of 2024’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF NUTRIA ERADICATION AND 

5 CONTROL ACT OF 2003. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3(e) of the Nutria Eradi7 cation and Control Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 8102(e)) is 

8 amended by striking ‘‘2025’’ and inserting ‘‘2030’’. 

9 (b) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—Section 3(a) of the 

10 Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 

11 8102(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘ ‘Secretary’),’’ and in12 serting ‘‘ ‘Secretary’)’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 17, 

2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 57 (Monday, March 26, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 14161]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5427]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>10817]


Oregon Disaster Number OR-00017

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 1.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Oregon 
(FEMA-1683-DR), dated 02/22/2007.
    Incident: Severe Winter Storm and Flooding.
    Incident Period: 12/14/2006 through 12/15/2006.
    Effective Date: 03/16/2007.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 04/23/2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of 
Oregon, dated 02/22/2007, is hereby amended to include the following 
areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

Primary Counties:
    Wasco.

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E7-5427 Filed 3-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
116 STAT. 1750 PUBLIC LAW 107–266—OCT. 30, 2002

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3740:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):

June 11, considered and passed House.

Oct. 17, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 107–266

107th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 925 Dickinson

Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘William A. Cibotti Post Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

925 Dickinson Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, shall be known

and designated as the ‘‘William A. Cibotti Post Office Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘William

A. Cibotti Post Office Building’’.

Approved October 30, 2002.

Oct. 30, 2002

[H.R. 3740]
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.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 By Notice dated November 21, 2006, and published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on December 1, 2006, (71 FR 69592-69593), National Center for Natural Products Research-NIDA MProject, University of Mississippi, 135 Coy Waller Lab Complex, University, Mississippi 38677, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule I: Drug
ScheduleMarihuana (7360)
ITetrahydrocannabinols (7370)
I
 The company plans to cultivate marihuana for the National Institute of Drug Abuse for research approved by the Department of Health and Human Services. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of National Center for Natural Products Research-NIDA MProject, University of Mississippi to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated National Center for Natural Products Research-NIDA MProject, University of Mississippi to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. Dated: March 8, 2007. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. E7-5398 Filed 3-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
No. 65576.

#### Chain Bike Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/16589, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### PEOPLE *v.*MARSH.

This ease is controlled by *People*v. *Woods*(1969), 382 Mich 128, and by *Jenkins*v. *Delaware*(1969), 395 US 213 (89 S Ct 1677, 23 L Ed 2d 253).

Appeal from Court of Appeals, Division 2, T. G. Kavanagli, P. J., and Levin and Sullivan, JJ., reversing Lenawee, Bex B. Martin, J.

Submitted December 3, 1969.

(Calendar No. 34, Docket No. 52,269.)

Decided April 14, 1970.

14 Mich App 518, reversed.

Fred Marsh was convicted of first-degree murder. Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals. Be-versed and remanded for new trial. The people appeal.

Court of Appeals reversed, and judgment of conviction affirmed.

*Frank J. Kelley,*Attorney General, *Robert A. Derengoski,*Solicitor General, and *Harvey A. Koselka,*Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

*J.*C; *Beardsley,*for defendant.

T. E. Brennan, C. J.

The Facts

Fred Marsh was convicted of the first-degree murder of one Herman Berger in 1941, upon his plea of guilty. In 1966, the circuit judge granted Marsh a new trial, because of deficiencies in his 1941 *496conviction. Prior to the new trial, on the authority of *Miranda*v. *Arizona*(1966), 384 US 436 (86 S Ct 1602, 16 L Ed 2d 694, 10 ALR3d 974), the judge suppressed a written statement given by Marsh in 1941 to the prosecuting attorney. At the new trial, Marsh testified. He did not deny the killing. He claimed, however, that he did not intend to kill Berger, and that he had never admitted killing or intending to kill Berger.

Over objection, the prosecuting attorney was permitted to question Marsh concerning this 1941 statement; and to call witnesses who testified about statements made by Marsh while he was being returned to Michigan from Pennsylvania after his arrest there in 1941. These statements were offered to rebut Marsh’s denial of any previous admissions. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of first-degree murder. Marsh appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed, stating that an inadmissible confession may not be used to impeach a defendant’s denial that he gave a confessional statement.

The Decision

The instant case is resolved by our recent holding in *People*v. *Woods*(1969), 382 Mich 128, and by *Jenkins*v. *Delaware*(1969), 395 US 213 (89 S Ct 1677, 23 L Ed 2d 253).

The Court of Appeals is reversed, and the conviction in circuit court is affirmed.

Dethmers, Kelly, and Black, JJ., concurred with T. E. Brennan, C. J.

T. M. Kavanagh and Adams, JJ., concurred in result.

T. Gr. Kavanagh, J., did not sit in this case.
#### In the Matter of John E. Powers and Another, Infants, Petitioners.*

Family Court, Yates County,

September 15, 1978

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Gage & Gage (Walter C. Gage*of counsel), for petitioners.

*Anthony J. Geraci, Law Guardian,*for John E. Powers, infant, petitioner. *Justin H. Corcoran, Law Guardian,*for Susan A. Burns, infant, petitioner. *Sybil Sands, pro se. Fred S. Burns*and another, *pro se.*

*

 By the Publisher's Editorial Staff.

*

Names used herein are fictitious for purposes of publication.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Frederick D. Dugan, J.

The petitioners, each 17 years of age, here seek a Family Court order approving and consenting that a marriage license be issued to them. They have retained counsel to make this application and the court has also appointed a Law Guardian for each infant.

The girl’s parents have consented in writing to the issuance of the marriage license by a town clerk but the boy’s widowed mother appears herein personally and confirms her refusal to give the written consent required under subdivision 2 of section 15 of the Domestic Relations Law.

The boy’s Law Guardian moves to dismiss the petition on *184the grounds that the Family Court has no jurisdiction to grant the approval and consent requested or to dispense with his mother’s written consent.

Judicial approval and consent would be required were this girl now under age 16 years (Domestic Relations Law, § 15, subd 3) and in addition to the approval of her parents. There is no requirement or authorization for any judicial approval and consent for a male of any age to obtain a marriage license.

No judicial approval and consent is here required or authorized (1978 Opns Atty Gen, Aug. 7, 1978).

As to the mother’s refusal to give her written consent to license the marriage of her 17-year-old son, even were it shown to be unreasonably withheld or refused, the Family Court has no subject matter jurisdiction to review a parent’s refusal or to dispense with the written parental consent required by the statute before a town or city clerk may issue a marriage license to a person under 18 years of age.

Motion granted and petition dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

JohnB. Carrington, Chief Executive Officer of Websense, Inc., hereby certifiespursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

1.The Annual Report on Form 10-K of Websense, Inc. for the year ended December 31,2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theExchange Act and

 

2.The information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Websense, Inc.for the year ended December 31, 2004 fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of Websense, Inc.for the period covered by the Annual Report.

 

 
| Dated: | March 4,  2005 |                    |
|--------|---------------------|-------------------------|
|   |                |
|   | By:                 | /s/ JOHN B. CARRINGTON  |   |
|   |                | John B. Carrington      |
|   |                | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----

* A signedoriginal of this written statement has been provided to Websense, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.This written statement accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is notdeemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and is not to beincorporated by reference into any filing of Websense, Inc. under theSecurities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, irrespective of anygeneral incorporation language contained in such filing.

 

----
#### Michael K. Burke, Respondent, *v.*Anna M. Mullan, *Individually and as*Administratrix, etc., *of*George V. Mullan, *Deceased, Appellant.*

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by Gilbert, J. ; Dykman, J., dissenting.