alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 172 (Friday, September 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 46944]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23534]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Connecticut Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of 
the Connecticut Advisory Committee will convene at 1:00 p.m. and 
adjourn at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 24, 1997, at Naugatuck 
Valley Community-Technical College, the Student Center (5th floor), 750 
Chase Parkway, Waterbury, CT 06708. The purpose of the meeting is to 
plan for the 1997 civil rights conference.
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact Committee Chairperson Neil Macy, 860-
242-7287, or Ki-Taek Chun, Director of the Eastern Regional Office, 
202-376-7533 (TDD 202-376-8116). Hearing-impaired persons who will 
attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language 
interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least five (5) 
working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, August 28, 1997.
Carol-Lee Hurley,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 97-23534 Filed 9-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
#### FONTAINEBLEAU HOTEL, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. David WALTERS and Arthur Courshon, Appellees.

No. 69-580.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 17, 1970.

Shalle Stephen Fine, Miami, for appellant.

Walters, Moore & Costanzo, S. Harvey Ziegler, Miami, Michael H. Salmon, Miami Beach, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed upon the authority of Mortimer Co. v. Fridstein, 101 Fla. 33, 133 So. 566 (1931) ; Roy L. Willard, Inc. v. Miller, 150 Fla. 458, 8 So.2d 489 (1942).
January 29, 2015

In accordance with the enclosed Memorandum Opinion, below is the judgment in the numbered cause set out herein to be entered in the Minutes of this Court as of the 29th day of January, 2015.

10-14-00348-CV	ALFRED LEE STONE v. GARY L. JOHNSON, ET AL - ON APPEAL FROM THE 278ST DISTRICT COURT OF WALKER COUNTY - TRIAL COURT NO. 20625-C - DISMISSED - Opinion by Justice Scoggins:

“This cause came on to be heard on the Court’s own motion to dismiss appeal, and the same being considered, because it is the opinion of the Court that said appeal should be dismissed; it is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that said appeal be, and hereby is, dismissed.  It is further ordered that Appellant Alfred Lee Stone pay all costs in this behalf expended and that this decision be certified below for observance.”

# image1.png
No. 00-7843 (00A593).

#### Glock *v.*Florida.

Sup. Ct. Fla. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Kennedy, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Khoa D. Nguyen,the President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Ezenia!Inc. (the “Company”), certify that:

1.                 I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 10-K/Aof the Company;

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

3.                 Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for,the periods presented in this annual report;

4.                 As the solecertifying officer I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) of the Company and we have:

a.                 Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this annual report is being prepared;

b.                Evaluated theeffectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

c.                 Disclosed in thisreport any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the Company’s fourth fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and

5.                 As the solecertifying officer I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and theaudit committee of Company’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

a.                 All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

b.                Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the Company’s internal control over financialreporting.

| Date: April 10, 2006 | By:    | /s/ KHOA D.  NGUYEN        |
|---------------------------|--------|----------------------------|
|                      |   | Khoa D. Nguyen             |
|                      |   | *Chief  Executive Officer* |
|                      |   | *Chief  Financial Officer* |

 

----
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Joseph A. CATANESE.

No. 62184.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 2, 1978.

In re: State of Louisiana, through the District Attorney, John A. Richardson, applying for writ of certiorari or review. Parish of Caddo.

Granted.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a Writ of Certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Fred C. Sexton, Jr., Judge of the First (1st) Judicial District, Court for the Parish of Caddo, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 16th day of June, 1978, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this court, on a date to be fixed by this Court, why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.
Exhibit  32.1
                                                                  -------------

                                 ALPHATRADE.COM
                              A Nevada corporation

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of AlphaTrade.com. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, GORDON
MUIR, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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 results of operations of
         the Company.




         Dated: August 13, 2003                    /s/ Gordon Muir
                                                   ----------------------------
                                                   Its: Chief Executive Officer


         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 has been provided to the Company and will be
         retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
         Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certifications are
         accompanying the Company's Form 10-QSB solely 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) and is not being
         filed as part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.














                                       24
#### Jerry BAUMANN, Appellant, v. DONUT MASTER BAKERY, INC., Appellee.

No. 2573.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 25, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sierra Resource Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter  ending March 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Sandra J. Andre, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to 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: May 4, 2006



                                        By: /s/ SANDRA J. ANDRE
                                            ___________________________
                                                Sandra J. Andre
                                                President and
                                                Chief Executive Officer
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JONATHAN W. GRIGSBY,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

ROBERT A. HOREL, Warden; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-17587

D.C. No. 3:08-cv-01475-CRB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 18, 2013** 

Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Jonathan W. Grigsby, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First and

Fourteenth Amendment claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

FILED

JUN 20 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-17587

review de novo, Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 1996), and we

affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Grigsby’s First

Amendment claims because Grigsby failed to raise a genuine dispute of material

fact as to whether defendants personally caused the alleged deprivation of his

constitutional rights based on the isolated incidents of a piece of mail not being

delivered and a priority mail package being delayed fifteen days. See Leer v.

Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A person deprives another of a

constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative

act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he

is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff

complains.” (citation, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted)).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Grigsby’s due

process claim because Grigsby failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as

to whether defendants were personally involved in the confiscation or destruction

of his excess stamps. See id.

We reject Grigsby’s argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that he was

denied an opportunity to oppose summary judgment, because the evidence
3 11-17587

described in Grigsby’s briefs would have been insufficient to defeat summary

judgment. 

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 99.2**

 

**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 theQuarterly Report of dELiA*s Corp. on Form 10-Q for the period ending May 3,2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Evan Guillemin,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, asadopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 
|   | By:    | /s/                     | Evan Guillemin |   |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|----------------|--------|
|   |   | Evan Guillemin          |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer |
|   |   | June 17, 2003           |

 

----
NO. 07-09-0324-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

DECEMBER 29, 2009

______________________________

WENDELL H. TAYLOR,

Appellant

V.

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellee

_______________________________

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2008-562,834; HON. PAULA DAVIS LANEHART, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Memorandum Opinion

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

Appellant Wendell H. Taylor filed a notice of appeal on October 2, 2009. However,

appellant did not pay the $175 filing fee required from appellants under Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 5. On October 13, 2009, appellant filed an affidavit of indigency,

which was contested by the county clerk on October 30, 2009. By hearing on November

30, 2009, the trial court determined that appellant was not indigent and able to pay the
2

costs associated with prosecuting this appeal. By letter from this Court dated December

14, 2009, we informed appellant that “the filing fee in the amount of $175.00 has not been

paid . . . . If the filing fee is not paid on or before December 28, 2009, the appeal will be

dismissed for want of prosecution.” TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c); see Holt v. F. F. Enterprises,

990 S.W.2d 756 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 1998, pet. ref’d). The deadline lapsed, and the fee

was not received. 

Because appellant has failed to pay the requisite filing fee as directed by the court,

we dismiss the appeal pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c).

 

Per Curiam
#### George J. BAYA, Appellant, v. James H. PRICE et al., Appellees.

No. 68-722.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

April 29, 1969.

*254Joseph A. Perkins, L. J. Cushman, Miami, for appellant.

Horton & Schwartz, Miami, for appel-lees.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and PEARSON and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

George J. Baya appeals from a final judgment which dismissed his petition to impress a retaining lien on a stock certificate for ten thousand shares of the stock of Airlift International, Inc. The basis of his claim for the alleged retaining lien on the stock certificate was professional services rendered by him to James H. Price and James H. Price & Co., Inc. A judgment adverse to Baya was rendered after a hearing in the trial court.

We find substantial, competent evidence in the record upon which the trial court could find that Baya did not look to Price as the primary obligor, and that he considered Carr and Myer primarily responsible for his professional services and Price secondarily liable.

This cause is governed by the Statute of Frauds, Fla.Stat. § 725.01, F.S.A. which provides as follows:

> “No action shall be brought * * * whereby to charge the defendant upon any special promise to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another person * * * unless the agreement or promise upon which such action shall be brought or some note or memorandum thereof shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith * * * *"*

See also Troup Bros., Inc. v. State, Fla.App.1961, 135 So.2d 755.

The judgment herein appealed be and the same is, therefore,

Affirmed.
Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

and Securities and Exchange Commission Release 34-46427

I, Stephen A. Ballas, the principal executive officer of Ministry Partners Investment Corporation, certify that:

	1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Ministry Partners Investment Corporation; 

	2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 quarterly report; 

	3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report; 

	4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have: 

	(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared; 

	(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and 

	(c) presented in this annual report or conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date; 

	5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

	(a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weakness in internal controls; and 

	(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and 

	6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. 

Dated: March 29, 2004

									/s/ Stephen A. Ballas
									Stephen A. Ballas

									Principal Executive Officer
# ~p.rrr**GUIDE QUICK~·** **·** WWW.STEADIDRONE.COM

# OOWNi.oJu,TttE QUJCICSTARTGUIDE (WI1;ej,- 

## have

# oloviausrydone

# '*-Y.

as YOU 

## are reading it right

# now, haha)

# a 

# see 0 NAZA V2 I APM 

### 2 . 6 GPS ATTI I AL.T HOL.D A TTl I GPS HOL.D FAILSAFE I RETURN HOMENAZA V2 

### To arm the Naza V2 move the st i cks 

### t o any bottom comer at the same time. The motors will spin up once armed . Before arming your unit, your radio and drone need 

### to be powered. APM2.6 I PIXHAWK To arm the APM I PIXHAWK move the left stick 

### to the bottom right. (For PIXHAWKyou will need 

### to pr es s and hold the pre-arm button before arming ). The motors will spin once you go above 1 % throttle. To di sarm the APM /

PIXHAWK move the left

s tick 

### to the bottom left .

APM 2.6 I PIXHAWK Data Telemetry APM 2.6 - You will n ee d 

### to plug DF13 cable into the Telem. port 

### on the flight controller , and into the port 

### on the data telemetry module.PIXHAWKYou will need 

### to plug DF13 ca ble into the Telem 1 port 

### on the night controller, and into the port 

### on the data telemetry module. You can mount the data telemetry module 

### on the battery plate. You will need 

### to plug the other data telemetry module into your PC orAndroid devic e .

Naza V2 Compass Calibration Please ensure that you do the Naza V2 compass calibration. Please visit our support page 

### on our website for the Naza V2 Quick Start guide. http ://

www .ste ad

fdrone.comll nd

ex. php/su p

port?alias=s up

po rt

# -

Charging For charging instructions please read the chargers manual. Battery Voltages (4 Cell Battery) Fully Charged Battery - 4.2v per cell, 16.8v in total. Flat Battery- 3.6v percell, 14.4v in total. I.IPo Batteries Please read our l.iPo Disposal and safety guide on our website. http://www . stea dldrone.com/ index .ph

, plsupport?alias::support WWW . STEADIDRONE. COM
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 GSI Group Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 26, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Sergio Edelstein, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, 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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/ SERGIO EDELSTEINSergio EdelsteinPresident and Chief Executive Officer


April 13, 2010

This Certification shall not be deemed part of the Report or incorporated by reference into any of the Companys filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission by implication or by any reference in any such filings to the Report.

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