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

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the quarterly report of DayStar Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended March 31,2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the “Report”), I, Stephan J. DeLuca, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

2. The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Date: May 15, 2007 

 

This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to DayStar Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by DayStar Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Jacob E. Fox, *Respondent v.*William H. Abbott, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by Smith, P. J.;

Hardin, J., not sitting.
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, John Mueller, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Genius Products,
Inc.; and

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.



|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                  |  |                                                                     
|------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ---------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|                    |  |  | 
|Dated: May 18, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ JOHN MUELLER
|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                  |  | John Mueller                                                        
|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                  |  | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
No. 56041.

protest 130071-K (Los Angeles).

#### Schenley Distilleries, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8651 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to include education on trailer 

safety in State highway safety programs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 7, 2024 

Mr. BURCHETT (for himself and Mr. GARAMENDI) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to include education 

on trailer safety in State highway safety programs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Trailer Safety Im5 provement Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TRAILER SAFETY PROGRAMS. 

7 Section 402(a)(2)(A)(xiv) of title 23, United States 

8 Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘, prevent improper and 

9 unsafe use of light-duty and medium-duty trailers, and 

10 educate the public about required trailer safety equipment 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8651 IH

1 and preventive maintenance’’ after ‘‘unsecured vehicle 

2 loads’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A0935. DAVID UKIEL HAMILTON v. MARLYNE ANNA-MAE

HAMILTON-PEART.

David Ukiel Hamilton and Marlyne Anna-Mae Hamilton-Peart were divorced

in 2015. In October 2016, Hamilton-Peart initiated this action by filing a motion for

an order holding Hamilton in contempt for his failure to pay alimony and marital

debts pursuant to the terms of the parties’ divorce decree. Following a hearing, the

trial court granted the contempt motion. Hamilton then filed this direct appeal. We,

however, lack jurisdiction.

Where, as here, the underlying action involves rights and obligations arising

out of a divorce decree, and does not involve child custody, the case is a domestic

relations matter within the meaning of OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2). See Walker v. Estate

of Mays, 279 Ga. 652, 653 (1) (619 SE2d 679) (2005). Appeals in such matters must

be initiated by filing an application for discretionary review. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a)

(2), (b); accord Voyles v. Voyles, 301 Ga. 44, 47 (799 SE2d 160) (2017) (an appeal

in a domestic relations case in which custody is not at issue must be brought by

discretionary application). “[C]ompliance with the discretionary appeals procedure

is jurisdictional.” Fabe v. Floyd, 199 Ga. App. 322, 332 (1) (405 SE2d 265) (1991).

January 04, 2018
Hamilton’sfailure to follow the discretionary review procedure deprives us of

jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. See id.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

01/04/2018
ex10-2.htm


Exhibit 10.2

 

 

FIRST AMENDMENT

TO

M.D.C. HOLDINGS, INC.

2011 STOCK OPTION PLAN FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS

 

The following First Amendment to the M.D.C. Holdings, Inc. 2011 Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors, effective April 27, 2011 (the "Plan"), was adopted by the Board of Directors of M.D.C. Holdings, Inc. on January 26, 2015, subject to approval of the Company’s shareholders. Capitalized terms used herein shall have the meanings ascribed in the Plan.

 

The first sentence of Section 4.1 of the Plan is amended to read as follows:

 

4.1     Number of Shares. Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 9, the maximum number of shares of Stock available for issuance under the Plan shall be 1,325,000 shares. 

 

	
 
	
M.D.C. HOLDINGS, INC.
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
By: 
	
/s/ John M. Stephens
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 



 

Date: March 23, 2015
Before the Third Division,

March 23, 1950

No. 54141.

#### Wing Chong Lung Co. and Yee Sing Co. *v.*United States,

protests 953392-G and 953434-G (Los Angeles).

*404Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that a portion of the merchandise, namely, 2.2 percent thereof by weight, consists of broken rice of the same character and description as that involved in Abstract 48704. The claim of the plaintiffs as to said portion of the merchandise was therefore sustained.
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF 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 Quarterly Report of ChinaCast Education Corporation on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Ron Chan Tze Ngon, Chairman of the Board
and Chief Executive Officer of ChinaCast Education Corporation, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by 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; and




2. The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of ChinaCast Education
Corporation.




Dated:
      August 9, 2010
                /s/ Ron Chan Tze
      NgonRon Chan Tze NgonChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
                  (Principal Executive
      Officer)
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John A. Scarlett, M.D., certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Tercica, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Tercica, Inc.



|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                           
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------------
|Date: November 1, 2007 |  |  |  |     |  |                           
|                       |  |  | 
|                       |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ John A. Scarlett, M.D.
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | John A. Scarlett, M.D.    
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer   

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Tercica, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form
10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-40602 Summary Calendar

EDWARD C. CHARLES, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus CAROL S. VANCE, Chairman, Texas Board of Criminal Justice; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 9:94-CV-136

- - - - - - - - - - April 22, 1997 Before KING, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Edward C. Charles, Texas state prisoner # 627324, requests permission to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in the appeal of the denial of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit. Chief Judge Politz ordered Charles to file an affidavit for leave to proceed IFP on appeal pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA). The order held Charles’ appeal in abeyance for 30 daysNo. 96-40602 - 2 - pending payment of the $105 filing fee or submittal of the required documents pursuant to the PLRA. Charles timely responded; however, the documentation submitted by Charles does not comply with the requirements imposed by the PLRA because he did not submit information regarding his prison trust account for the required six-month period. See § 1915(a), (b). Accordingly, Charles’ motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED for want of prosecution. See 5th Cir. R. 42.3. Should Charles wish to reinstate his appeal, he is instructed to pay the $105 filing fee to the clerk of the district court within 30 days from the date of this order.
MOTION DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 18
- 00534
- CV

In the Interest of S. F. H.

FROM THE 261ST DISTR ICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D
- 1
- AG
- 18
- 000834 , HONORABLE MARY ANN M ORTON, JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
The clerk’s record in this appeal was due for filing in this Court on September 10,
2018

. On September 11, 2018 , we notified appellant that no clerk’s record had been filed due to
his failure to pay or make arrangements to pay the t rial clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record. The notice requested that appellant make arrangements for the clerk’s record and submit a status report regarding this appeal by September 21, 2018

. Further, the notice advised appellant that his failure to comply with this request could result in the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. To date, appellant has not filed a status report or otherwise responded to this Court’s notice, and the clerk’s record has not been filed.

If a trial

- court clerk fails to file the clerk’s record due to an appellant’s failure to pay or make arrangements to pay for the clerk’s fee for preparing the record, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless the appellant was entitled to p roceed without payment of costs. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). In this case, appellant has not established that he is entitled to proceed without payment of costs. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145 . Because2

appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

____________ ______________________________ Thomas J. Baker , Justice Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Triana Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: February 13, 2019
II lit* I£>

J^?/?;c^ Gjl-t^yg^i

_^2^.(p.l Gh ^o=^\

7^n/ie,"vW; /k^/|^>T7^f^

Sto< 0TM/l\- o^Pj;-^-,nr4 ApJtoz{<

^L^3^

flSCEIVED IN

OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

j^f.Vn-Tx 7<fT/|

^.

' ^tf(.f.-./110 <?#?;? '.find

LW PM&K,tlwn k)ifr4fa* An •• fejaAsn'ML.b -fe Afr/|gg _

-f^edfAAK^i-ofh^

dtT&fi'ti G^V -•^m

Ot/vte/lAeJ: -fe '-£&$-!an L>\/ fc. W af^4/]ni'on jo

0^- CP3i© ^rf)'

iCfrvr

flMfn^f ' -'<p. anj JbQl mt^r^n ,v\-fc>. (hf&Jfi(A Mj>^/6e£r QbcM;..
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Derrick Turton, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 156]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), rendered October 19, 1993, convicting him of assault in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

A court in its charge need not marshal all the evidence, but must "state the material legal principles applicable to the particular case” (CPL 300.10 [2]; *People v James,*194 AD2d 558). "Nor is the court required to explain all the contentions of the parties or outline all the inconsistencies in the evidence” *(People v Saunders,*64 NY2d 665, 667; *see also, People v James, supra).*However, if the court does refer to the evidence, it must do so fairly and in an even-handed manner *(People v Williamson,*40 NY2d 1073, 1074; *see also, People v Culhane,*45 NY2d 757, *cert denied*439 US 1047; *People v Waters,*195 AD2d 613; *People v James, supra).*"The critical issue on review is always whether [the] deficiency by [the court] in that respect denied defendant a fair trial” *(People v Saunders, supra,*at 667).

Here, it cannot be said that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial. The court marshaled the evidence in an even-handed manner and did not give undue emphasis to the People’s evidence or theories. In addition, the court instructed the jurors that nothing the court stated was evidence, and that the jurors were "the exclusive judges of the facts, and * * * what I may *672say during the course of this charge by way of illustration or just so that you understand the relevance of certain points of law, should in no way be taken by you as suggesting that I think you should reach a particular verdict”.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

In
connection with the quarterly report of DayStar Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the
Report), I, Christopher T. Lail, Controller and Chief Accounting 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; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.

Date: May 5, 2008



By:

/s/    CHRISTOPHER T.
LAILChristopher T. LailController and Chief Accounting Officer
No. 55343.

#### City of Paris Dry Goods Co. and Raphael Weill & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 151458-K and 153413-K (San Francisco).

Opinion, by

Ford, J.

.The. protests were..dismissed.
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 Highland Hospitality Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Douglas W. Vicari, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial 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 to the best of my 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 results of operations
of the Company.

Date: August 8, 2006



/s/ Douglas W. VicariExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer




1
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 56 (Friday, March 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 13837]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5429]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week 
of March 26, 2007:
    A Closed Meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 at 2 
p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsels to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a) (5), 
(7), 9(ii) and (10) permit consideration of the scheduled matters at 
the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Nazareth, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the closed meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, 
March 28, 2007 will be:

Formal orders of investigation;
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an 
enforcement nature;
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: March 21, 2007.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-5429 Filed 3-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-20860

Summary Calendar

CARL WAYNE STEWART

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:07-CV-36

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Carl Stewart sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

The district court granted the United States judgment as a matter of law, and

Stewart has appealed. We now affirm.

We review the district court’s decision to grant the Government’s motion

to dismiss (which it treated as a motion for summary judgment) by applying the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 10, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-20860

1 Ashford v. United States, 511 F.3d 501, 504 (5th Cir. 2007). 

2 See id.

3 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1); Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1, 9, 82 S. Ct. 585, 590–91

(1962) (observing that in cases where the Government’s alleged negligence and the injury it

allegedly caused occur in the same jurisdiction, that jurisdiction’s law applies).

4 See Barclay v. Campbell, 704 S.W.2d 8, 10–11 (Tex. 1986) (noting the scope of the

required expert testimony in lack-of-informed-consent medical malpractice cases); see also

Edwards v. Garcia-Gregory, 866 S.W.2d 780, 784 (Tex. App. 1993) (“Medical malpractice is an

area of the law where the fact finder must be guided by medical expert testimony.”). 

2

same standards the district court used.1 That standard requires us to determine

if the Government is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, meaning no

reasonable trier of fact could find in Stewart’s favor.2

Stewart’s claim is that a doctor treating him at a Veteran Affairs hospital

committed medical malpractice during a throat examination. The source of the

doctor’s alleged malpractice was his failure to ask Stewart to consent to the

examination. To succeed on this claim, Stewart must meet the requirements of

the Federal Tort Claims Act, which in turn requires him to establish all of the

elements of a cause of action for medical malpractice under Texas law, since the

alleged malpractice occurred in Texas.3 Under Texas law, the plaintiff in a

medical malpractice claim alleging lack of informed consent must present expert

testimony to support his position.4 Stewart, however, neither timely designated

an expert (i.e. told the district court the identity of the doctor who would testify

on his behalf), nor requested additional time to do so. As a result, the district

court determined that Stewart was not going to have an expert for trial and

therefore correctly granted the United States summary judgment, determining

it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

AFFIRMED.