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

                            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 APO Health, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dr. Jan Stahl, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.

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


Dated: August 12, 2004

                                        /s/ Jan Stahl
                                        -------------------
                                        Name: Dr. Jan Stahl
                                        Title: Chief Executive Officer and Chief
                                        Financial Officer
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-96192) pertaining to the registration of 2,526,025 shares of common
stock of VideoServer, Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No.333-28209) pertaining to the registration of 223,881 shares of common stock of
VideoServer, Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-85245) pertaining to the VideoServer, Inc. 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 333-44984) pertaining to the Amended and Restated 1991 Stock Incentive Plan and the 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of
Ezenia! Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-66628) pertaining to the registration of 400,000 shares of common stock of Ezenia! Inc.,
and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-75824) pertaining to the 2001 Stock Incentive Plan, of our report dated March 25, 2003 with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Ezenia! Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003.



Boston,
Massachusetts
March 24, 2004

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 99.1





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 Annual Report of BWAY Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending September
29, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jean-Pierre M. Ergas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:





|(1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




/s/  Jean-Pierre M. ErgasJean-Pierre M. Ergas Chief Executive Officer December 30, 2002
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 US Biodefense, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 28, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Chin, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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:

 

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

/s/ David Chin

|   | David Chin |  
 

Chief Executive Officer

 

April 14, 2006

 
 

 

 

 

  |
|--------|------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ERODE ARILUS, :

:

Petitioner, : No. 4:CV-05-0123

:

vs. : Petition Filed 01/18/05

:

THOMAS HOGAN, ET AL., : (Judge Muir)

:

Respondents :

ORDER

June 29, 2005

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

Petitioner Erode Arilus is a native and citizen of Haiti who

is currently in the custody of the United States government at

the York County Prison based upon the issuance of a final order

to deport him to his native country. His alien number is A43 673

874. Arilus is represented by counsel and on January 18, 2005,

filed in this court a petition for writ of habeas corpus and a

motion to stay his deportation. By order dated February 24,

2005, we stayed Arilus’s removal pending our disposition of his

petition. In his habeas petition, Arilus seeks to defer his

removal from the United States pursuant to the United Nations

Convention Against Torture.

On June 8, 2005, the government filed a motion to transfer

this case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third

Circuit. A supporting brief was filed with the motion. The time

Case 4:05-cv-00123-MM Document 12 Filed 06/29/05 Page 1 of 2
2

allowed for Arilus to file an opposition brief expired on June

27, 2005, and to this date no such brief has been filed. 

The REAL ID Act of 2005 provides that the Court of Appeals

with jurisdiction over the initial administrative immigration

proceedings is the proper forum in which to raise claims based on

the Convention Against Torture. The initial administrative

immigration proceedings in this case were in York, Pennsylvania.

We will grant the motion to transfer this case to the Court of

Appeals for the Third Circuit based on the merit of the

government’s motion and Arilus’s failure to oppose the motion.

See M.D. Local Rule 7.6 (party who fails to file opposition brief

“shall be deemed not to oppose such motion.”) 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The above-captioned case is transferred to the Court of

Appeals for the Third Circuit pursuant to the REAL ID

Act of 2005 as a petition for review.

2. The Clerk of Court shall transmit the entire record and

a copy of this order to the Court of Appeals for the

Third Circuit either in paper form or electronically.

3. The Clerk of Court shall close the case in this court.

s/Malcolm Muir 

MUIR, U. S. District Judge

MM:ga

Case 4:05-cv-00123-MM Document 12 Filed 06/29/05 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.44


                                   ADDENDUM #2

                                       TO

                         EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

                                     BETWEEN

                   WAREFORCE.COM, INC., WAREFORCE INCORPORATED

                                       AND

                                   JIM ILLSON

THIS Addendum amends and revises that certain Executive Employment Agreement by
and between Wareforce.com, Inc. and Jim Illson executed on July 25, 2000 and
effective as of March 16, 2000, as amended, as follows:

Amend Section 3.3.4.5 by deleting the following language "Such options shall
vest as follows:

        375,000 shall vest as of February 28, 2001;
        375,000 shall vest as of December 31, 2001;
        375,000 shall vest as of December 31, 2002;
        375,000 shall vest as of March 16, 2003."

And replacing such language with "The vesting schedule for this option grant
shall be as proposed by the Compensation Committee of the Company's board of
directors and as approved by the Company's board of directors at a time prior to
the presentation to the Company's shareholders of such options for a vote for
approval. Such schedule shall be substantially similar to that which was
outlined in the Amendment No. 1 to this Employment Agreement."

Agreed to this 20th day of December 2001.



WAREFORCE.COM, INC.                         WAREFORCE INCORPORATED



By: /s/ Don Hughes                          By: /s/ Don Hughes
    ----------------------                      ----------------------
Title: Chief Financial                      Title: Chief Financial
       Officer                                     Officer


EMPLOYEE

/s/ Jim Illson
--------------------------
JIM ILLSON
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           3,780
<SECURITIES>                                    36,774
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,871
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        369
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                49,642
<PP&E>                                          11,658
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,877)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  84,487
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,014
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                     160,710
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    84,487
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,821
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,544
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 105
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,239)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,239)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,239)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.91)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.91)


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0200

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

TIMOTHY GALE MUNYAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including December 3, 2021, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 28 2021

10/28/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0200
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         466,768
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  209,693
<ALLOWANCES>                                    18,000
<INVENTORY>                                     68,300
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               903,695
<PP&E>                                         404,304
<DEPRECIATION>                                 344,535
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,720,722
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          124,182
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                     1,331,321
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    159,244
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,596,540
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,720,722
<SALES>                                      1,270,773
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,270,773
<CGS>                                          364,808
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,091,897
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 931
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                190,507
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (237,200)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            190,507
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   427,707
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      Exhibit 32
                                                                      ----------

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

In  connection  with the Quarterly Report of International Commercial Television
Inc.  (the  "Company")  on  Form  10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as
filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  Kelvin Claney, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
and  Patrick Lavin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18  U.S.C.  Sec.  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act  of  2002,  that,  to  the  best  of  our  knowledge  and  belief:

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.

Date:     May  9,  2005
                                   Signed: /s/  Kelvin  Claney
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer

                                   Signed: /s/  Patrick  Lavin
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2167 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.2167

                       One Hundred Ninth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
            the fourth day of January, two thousand and five

                                 An Act

 
To amend the USA PATRIOT ACT to extend the sunset of certain provisions 
 of that Act and the lone wolf provision of the Intelligence Reform and 
            Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 to July 1, 2006.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF SUNSET OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE USA PATRIOT 
              ACT AND THE LONE WOLF PROVISION OF THE INTELLIGENCE 
              REFORM AND TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT OF 2004.

    Section 224(a) of the Uniting and Strengthening America by 
Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct 
Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001 (18 U.S.C. 2510 note) is 
amended by striking ``December 31, 2005'' and inserting ``February 3, 
2006''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 13-40462

In re: RADMAX, LIMITED, Petitioner.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (Opinion June 18, 2013, 720 F.3d 285)

Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
Treating the petition for rehearing en banc as a petition for panel rehearing, the petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. The court h aving been polled at the request of o ne o f its members, and a majority of the judges who are in regular active service and not disqualified not having voted in favor (F E D
. R. AP P
. U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D October 24, 2013 Ly l e W . Cayce ClerkNo. 13-40462

P. 35 and 5 T H C I R
. R. 35), the petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. In the en b anc poll, 7 judges voted in f avor of r e h e a r i n g ( Chief Judge Stewart and Judges King, Davis, Dennis, Elrod, Graves, and Higginson), and 8 judges voted against rehearing (Judges Jolly, J ones, Smith, Clement, Prado, Owen, Southwick, and Haynes).

ENTERED FOR THE COURT:
/s/ Jerry E. Smith JERRY E. SMITH United States Circuit Judge

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * STEPHEN A

. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge, joined b y KI NG, DAVIS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges, dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc.

I r espectfully dissent from the denial o f rehearing e n b anc, both for the
reasons I noted in my panel d i ssent, and also f or the reasons noted more eloquently by Charles Alan Wright in his article, T H E D O U B T F U L O M N I S C I E N C E O F AP P E L LA T E C O U R T S , 41 Minn. L. Rev. 751, 776 (1957). Wright identified more than f ifty years ago th e a p p e l late c ourt disarray a nd “controversy which now rages as to use of mandamus to review trial court orders granting or denying a transfer to a more convenient forum, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).” Section 1404(a) is Congress’s venue transfer s tatute, which uses p lain language to entrust district judges with discretion and duty to balance multiple factors and

2No. 13-40462

assess interests of justice: “For the convenience o f parties and witnesses, in the in t e re s t of j ustice , a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.... ” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (emphases a dded). I would favor o u r c o urt’s full attention t o the question whe t h e r o u r construction t oday of this s tatute, asserted in my opinion more constrictingly even than in In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc), propounds appellate manda m u s power over district judges which the Supreme Court h a s s a i d we d o not have. See Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 95 ( 1967) (All Writs Act available f or “exceptional circ u m s t a n c es amounting to a judicial ‘usurpation of power’”).

3
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Collective Bargaining Provisions : Seniority

              																	Weiss, Abraham, 1913-					 and 	Lehrer, Eleanor R. 						*Collective Bargaining Provisions : Seniority : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 908-11*,												Washington, D.C: 								U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 										1949,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4399,			accessed on September 5, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
#### V. L. UNDERHILL v. STATE.

No. 39008.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 226 So.2d 285.
PUBLIC LAW 115–157—MAR. 27, 2018 132 STAT. 1241 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2154: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 115–125 (Comm. on Agriculture). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: 

Vol. 163 (2017): May 17, considered and passed House. 

Vol. 164 (2018): Mar. 14, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–157 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To rename the Red River Valley Agricultural Research Center in Fargo, North 

Dakota, as the Edward T. Schafer Agricultural Research Center. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. RENAMING OF THE RED RIVER VALLEY AGRICULTURAL 

RESEARCH CENTER IN FARGO, NORTH DAKOTA AS THE 

EDWARD T. SCHAFER AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH 

CENTER. 

(a) RENAMING.—The Red River Valley Agricultural Research 

Center in Fargo, North Dakota, shall hereafter be known and 

designated as the ‘‘Edward T. Schafer Agricultural Research 

Center’’. 

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

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

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

to the Edward T. Schafer Agricultural Research Center. 

Approved March 27, 2018. 

Mar. 27, 2018 

[H.R. 2154] 


dkrause on DSKBC28HB2PROD with PUBLAWS
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ADRIAN ALEXANDER LESTER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-217

[July 27, 2017]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Cynthia L. Cox, 

Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 312013CF000519A, 312013CF000520A, 

312013CF000794A, and 312014CF000391A.

Philip J. Massa, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance filed for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, C.J., DAMOORGIAN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.