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






CERTIFICATION




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


(SUBSECTIONS
      (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63


OF
      TITLE
      18, UNITED STATES CODE)




Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), the
      undersigned officer of SonomaWest Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
      "Company"), does hereby certify that:




The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the "Form
      10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
      or
      15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
      information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.




Dated:
      May 15, 2006






/s/
      Walker R. Stapleton


Walker
      R.
      Stapleton, President, Chief


Executive
      Officer and Chief Financial Officer






A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      SonomaWest Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by SonomaWest Holdings, Inc.
      and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
No. 54272.

#### Kary Safe Paper Bag Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 150778-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the record disclosing nothing sufficient to disturb the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.
Exhibit 32



Certification Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002



I, Gordon R. Arnold, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that:



i.  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Sierra Monitor Corporation for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and;



ii. The information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Sierra Monitor Corporation.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Sierra Monitor Corporation and will be retained by Sierra Monitor Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Date:

November 12, 2009

By:

/s/ Gordon R. Arnold

Gordon R. Arnold

Chief Executive Officer

Chief Financial Officer



























Page 21 of 21
H. R. 9322 

One Hundred Eighteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 675 Wolf 

Ledges Parkway in Akron, Ohio, as the ‘‘Judge James R. Williams Post Office 

Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. JUDGE JAMES R. WILLIAMS POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 675 Wolf Ledges Parkway in Akron, Ohio, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Judge James R. Williams Post 

Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Judge James R. Williams Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINACIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         944,288
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  169,207
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     70,642
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,520,283
<PP&E>                                       4,332,596
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,752,415
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,307,791
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,488,036
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,494
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,307,791
<SALES>                                        997,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,241,308
<CGS>                                          202,611
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  297,961
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               894,621
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,454
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 48,726
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             48,726
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    48,726
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01


</TABLE>
VSE Corporation Form 10-Q September 30, 2010




Exhibit 32.2







CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO
 SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of VSE Corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify that to the best of the undersigned's knowledge:
 
 
 1) the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 (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 Company's Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: October 29, 2010
/s/ T. R. LoftusT. R. LoftusExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer(Principal Accounting Officer)
<PAGE>
                               VARLEN CORPORATION
                               55 Shuman Boulevard
                              Naperville, IL 60566

                                                May 14, 1999

Mr. Richard A. Nunemaker
141 Cottage Hill Avenue
Elmhurst, Ill. 60126

Dear Rick:

      Varlen Corporation (the "Company") recognizes and values your
contributions to its present success and your expected contributions to its
future success. This letter confirms that, as approved by the Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors on April 8, 1999, and communicated to you at
that time, the Company has determined to provide you with the following
benefits:

      Subject to the effectuation of any amendments to the Company's
      Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (the "SERP") necessary to implement
      this letter agreement, the Company will regard you as having 15 "years of
      service" for purposes of the SERP, and except as provided below will
      regard you as entitled to all benefits to which you would be entitled if
      you were age 62 on the date of this letter, with the result that upon your
      "Termination of Employment," as defined in the SERP, you will be entitled
      to the benefits specified in Section 4.1 of the SERP.

      For purposes of determining your Average Monthly Compensation as defined
      in Article II of the SERP, the phrase "the 120 consecutive month period of
      employment preceding the earlier of the date of the Participant's
      obtaining age 62 " shall mean the 120 consecutive month period of
      employment preceding the earlier of the date the Participant actually
      obtains age 62, without regard to the preceding paragraph of this letter.

            This letter and the SERP represent our agreement and supersede any
prior discussions or agreement on this subject.

                                          Very truly yours,

                                          VARLEN CORPORATION


                                          By: /s/ Greg A. Rosenbaum
                                             -------------------------
Agreed to:


/s/ Richard A. Nunemaker     May 14, 1999
--------------------------
Richard A. Nunemaker
July 1, 1969

No. 69-24

#### Theodore Brent Marshall, CS2, U. S. Navy v Honorable Melvin R. Laird, Secretary of Defense; Honorable John H. Chafee, Secretary of the Navy; ADM Thomas Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations; RADM Clyde J. Van Arsdall, Commander, Naval Base, Newport, Rhode Island, et al.

On consideration of the “Petition for Habeas Corpus and Certiorari” and the reponse of the Government, from which it appears the petitioner is being held in a navy brig for possible trial by court-martial for unauthorized absence and various alleged offenses in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, including rape, sodomy, and communicating threats to kill, which offenses appear to have been committed in an apartment in a naval dependent housing area adjacent and contiguous to the United States Naval Base at Newport, Rhode Island, at a time when petitioner was allegedly dressed in military uniform and absent without authority from his place of duty, and from which it further appears that the alleged victims of the accused’s acts were purportedly dependents of a navy serviceman on duty overseas, but which circumstances the petitioner has not conceded and which he contends do not have sufficient legal effect to confer military jurisdiction over these offenses under O’Callahan v Parker, 395 US 258, and it further appearing that there may be disputed questions of fact to be resolved at trial, It is

ORDERED that the “Petition for Habeas Corpus and Certiorari” be, and the same is, hereby denied with leave to the petitioner to assert the lack of court-martial jurisdiction as to any of the offenses referred to trial and on which he may be arraigned.
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 24266]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8385]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Research Service

Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License

AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to Osprey 
Biotechnics Inc. of Sarasota, Florida, an exclusive license to U.S. 
Patent No. 6,447,770, ``Biocontrol Agents for Take-All'', issued on 
September 10, 2002.

DATES: Comments must be received by June 1, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 
5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June Blalock of the Office of 
Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 
301-504-5989.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Government's patent rights in 
this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as 
represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public 
interest to so license this invention as Osprey Biotechnics Inc. of 
Sarasota, Florida has submitted a complete and sufficient application 
for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-
bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 
and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted 
unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, 
the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and 
argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be 
consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

Richard J. Brenner,
Assistant Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E7-8385 Filed 5-1-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
```
#### Gimbel Bros., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6763.

Entry No. 770974/1, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, May 1, 1941, etc.

Certified May 1, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., June 27, 1941, etc.

(Decided January 14, 1947)

*Fred Bennett*for the plaintiff.

*Paul f3. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Cole, Judge (Abstract):

These appeals for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concern the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” *305The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (c)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

An agreed set of facts shows export value', section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), to be the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise, and that such statutory values for the articles in question are the appraised values less additions made by the importer on entry because of advances in similar eases.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00401

- CR

T RINIDAD A LVARADO

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 297th District Court

of Tarrant County ( 1542459D )

November 4, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no reversible error in the trial cou rt’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment

of the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Brian Walker

Justice Brian Walker
### JUDGMENT 

## Court of Appeals First District of Texas

NO. 01

- 13

- 00593

- CR

BOBBY DEWAYNE EVANS , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Jefferson County . (Tr. Ct. No. 12

- 14438 ).

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on June 17, 2013, which was transferred by the Supreme Court of Texas to this Court from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth District o f Texas. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment contains no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered March 31, 2015.

Panel consists of Justices Massengale, Brown, and Huddle. Opinion delivered by Justice Massengale.
Before the First Division,

January 24, 1940

No. 43090.

#### Protest 825148-G of Langfelder, Homma & Hayward, Inc. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Brown J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the paperweights in question which were plated with silver were held dutiable at 50 percent under paragraph 339 as claimed. *Woolworth*v. *United States*(26 C. C. P. A. 221, C. A. D. 20) followed.
Record of Discussio n Docket No. FAA- Directorat e I de nti fie r: -AD
With whom outsid e the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)?

ORGAN I ZA TI ON PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED Boei n g Norm Bl ack 3/ 1 0 / 14 No response. A4A Bob Ireland 3/10/14 No response.

Ot he r /Add iti onal Inf ormation : Ema iled both individuals listed above about releasing S B 767- 27 A0229 Original issue.
(Reap. Dec. 9394)

#### Zewo Manufacturing Works, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 720085, etc.

(Decided April 13, 1959)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Gout,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*607Lawrence, Judge:

When the appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” attached to and made part of this decision, were called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff.

An examination of the official record discloses no reason for disturbing the presumptively correct value for the merchandise found by the appraiser.

I, therefore, find and hold the proper dutiable value of the merchandise covered by these appeals to be the value found by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1205

___________

Steven Griggs, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

State of Missouri; Jeremiah W. Nixon; *

Shelley A. Woods; Paul Wilson, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: June 2, 2010

Filed: June 7, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Steven Griggs appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action for failure to state a claim. Upon de novo review, see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d

1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam), we agree that dismissal was proper. See 25

1

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable William A. Knox, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District

of Missouri, now retired. 
U.S.C. § 305e(d)(3); Delorme v. United States, 354 F.3d 810, 815 (8th Cir. 2004). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

-2-
No. 48090.

#### Petition 6304-R of Tupman Thurlow Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

From the record it appeared that the petitioner amended his.entry in accordance with what he believed was the price suggested by the. appraiser but, through some misunderstanding, failed to include the charge for insurance which the appraiser deemed to be a part of the value. It was found that the petitioner acted without intention to misrepresent the facts or to defraud the revenue of the United States. The petition was therefore granted.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6086

JEFFREY DAVID BARNES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CONCHETTA MOON, Head Nurse; NURSE SHERMAN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-98-1401)

Submitted: April 13, 2000 Decided: April 21, 2000

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey David Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Joseph McNelis,

III, BREWSTER S. RAWLS & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey David Barnes appeals the district court’s order granting summary to the Defendants on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.

1999) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Barnes v. Moon,

No. CA-98-1401 (E.D. Va. Dec. 29, 1999). 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
2007 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

2-22-2007

Budiyono v. Atty Gen USA

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 05-3737

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Budiyono v. Atty Gen USA" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1584.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1584
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-3737

 

FNU BUDIYONO,

Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE UNITED STATES,

Respondent

 

On Petition for Review of an Order of

The Board of Immigration Appeals

Immigration Judge: Honorable Miriam K. Mills

(No. A96-203-450)

 

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

June 7, 2006

Before: AMBRO, FUENTES and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges

(Filed June 28, 2006 )

ORDER AMENDING NOT PRECEDENTIAL OPINION

AMBRO, Circuit Judge

IT IS NOW ORDERED that the Not Precedential Opinion in the above case

filed June 28, 2006, be amended as follows:

On page six, line ten, delete the word “a” after “in” and before “another” so that

the phrase reads “to a brief submitted in another petition”. 

By the Court,

/s/ Thomas L. Ambro, Circuit Judge

Dated: February 22, 2007