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 Annual Report of Thomasville Bancshares, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, Stephen H. Cheney, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, does hereby 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) 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.


By: /s/ Stephen H. Cheney
    -----------------------------
    Stephen H. Cheney
    President and Chief Executive Officer
    March 31, 2005
    (principal executive, financial and accounting officer)
# l:lNREL N A

T I O NAL n E N EWA B L E E N EnGY LABOn ATO n Y
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2015

To: Janice Godfrey, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards · From: Gian Porro, NREL , Laboratory Program Manager - Analy s is Subject: Use of"Annual Techn o logy Baseline - Review Draft ," M ar c h 27, 2 015. J a nice, Thank you for your interest in citing NREL 's publication " Annual Teclmology Bas eline - Review Draft " dated March 27 , 2015 . Although the document is labeled " Draft vers ion - Do not cite or distribute," as is typical practic e for NREL when releasing draft mat erial s for public review and conm1ent, NREL does grant , via this memo, approval for EPA t o cite the March 27 " Annual Technology Baseline - Review Draft" in the Agency's 

### GHG MUigati on M easures Te chnical Support Document that accompanies th e Clean Power Plan rulemakin g publi c docket. 

### If you have a ny questions or need addition a l a s si s t anc e , pleas e let me know.

Gian Porro

15013 Denver West Parkway Golden, CO 80401 Phone 303-275-3000 NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of En ergy Office of Energy Efficiency & Ren e wable Energy Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable En ergy, LLC
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS ^lUjpQ^

3ESS _ K^saawssa ^ \

STATE ©F TEXAS

PENALTY F©R f

PRIVATE USE * -*

4/29/2015 ^ ;-

CARSON, JAMES BERNARDVJR. Tr. Ct. No

The Court has dismissed your application Tc>n.wnt of habeas corpus without written

order; the sentence has been discharged** See Ex parte Harrington, 310

S.W.3d452 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)/

02 im 3> m$.~&

0004279596 APR 30 20

MAILED FROM ZIPCODE 78 70 ,

1995CR5821-W5 WR-59,872-09

RETl

inmat/release

:R Abel Acosta, Clerk

namLnd sid number D0IAM£S BERNARD CARjS€JN JR. uTF

not MAttw^ [^EXARpOUNTXABdLT -TDC #653492

-2-00-N^|qB

ITEMS NOT ALLOWED IN TH^M^rajONlO TX 78207 FACILITY i-~**-JVTM H

N3B "7S207 "••|l.l,,,,hlH„l.|||.ill.|||HI||l||uj,.|,j||,|||j||j|jiH.|,H

\
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                     REMOTE DYNAMICS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                            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 Remote Dynamics, Inc. (the "Company"),
on Form 10-K for the period ended August 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, W. Michael Smith,
Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and
Treasurer 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 result of operations
            of the Company.

/s/ W. Michael Smith
--------------------------
W. Michael Smith
Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer,
Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
November 15, 2004
#### In re ESTATE of Steve JANIGA, Deceased.

No. 69-641.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 17, 1970.

Appeal from County Judge’s Court, Bre-vard County; Virgil B. Conkling, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Richard B. DURKIN and Patricia M. Durkin, his wife, Appellants, v. Charles R. MORGAN, Harry G. Carratt and Francis D. O’Connor d/b/a Morgan Carratt and O’Connor, Appellees.

No. 2381.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Oct. 22, 1969.

*232Neil J. LaHurd, of Parkhurst and La-Hurd, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Harry G. Carratt, of Morgan, Carratt & O’Connor, Fort Lauderdale, for appel-lees.

WALDEN, Judge.

We approach again the question which has so often and for so long confounded counsel and the courts — should summary judgment have been entered?

The principles of law are well known and this case does not require a rehashing, a refinement or a re-consideration of them.

We reverse the summary final judgment here appealed for the reason that there are genuine issues of material fact which should have precluded its entry. Rule 1.510, R.C.P., 31 F.S.A. What are they? A firm of attorneys had obtained summary final judgment against the defendants, husband and wife, for attorneys’ fees in the sum of $2,694.72, plus costs and interest. Looking at the material properly before the trial court, we catalog at least these:

1. Was the defendant wife obligated to pay the attorney fees claimed? There was evidence that she had never dealt with plaintiff’s attorneys; had never agreed to pay them; and that all statements of accounts had been rendered only to the defendant, husband.

2. Were plaintiffs entitled to receive $2,694.72, the amount of the judgment? The defendant, husband, says that the fees in a certain bankruptcy suit for which $2,152.50 was claimed were not to have exceeded $300.00 and that he had never approved or become indebted for a larger sum. This is an issue despite the defendants’ unsworn pleading in another suit which reflected that plaintiffs were entitled to fees from a certain deposit in another suit as there is no showing that defendants agreed to pay them.

3. There is a blanket denial under oath of the allegations of the plaintiffs which they made in support of their motion.

The summary judgment procedure is not a trial by affidavits, Weinstein v. General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Company, Limited, Fla.App.1962, 141 So.2d 318. The judgment is reversed by authority of Jack Drury & Associates, Inc. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 361, and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Reversed.

REED and OWEN, JJ., concur.
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION




QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document
  



Exhibit 10.3  


 
 

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT    
  


The
Board of Directors

BakBone Software KK: 


        We
consent to the inclusion of our report dated October 5, 2001, with respect to the balance sheets of BakBone Software KK (formerly NetVault Corporation) as of
February 29, 2000, December 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related statements of operations, shareholders' capital deficiency and cash flows for the period from January 1, 2000
through February 29, 2000, the year ended December 31, 1999 and for the period from February 2, 1998 (date of incorporation) through December 31, 1998, which report appears
in the registration statement on Form 20-F of BakBone Software Incorporated. 



	 	 	/s/ KPMG
	 	 	 







	Tokyo, Japan

January 31, 2002	 	 





1









QuickLinks


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:09-CR-346

:

v. : (Chief Judge Conner)

:

GREGORY O’NEAL :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 30th day of June, 2016, upon consideration of defendant’s 

pro se motion (Doc. 260) to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, 

576 U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), and it appearing that upon receipt of a § 2255 

motion, the court must dismiss the motion “[i]f it plainly appears from the motion 

. . . that the moving party is not entitled to relief, R. GOVERNING § 2255 CASES R. 4(b), 

and it further appearing that defendant previously filed a § 2255 motion seeking 

relief under Johnson, (see Doc. 255), which the court denied by order (Doc. 259) 

dated April 13, 2016, and that a defendant filing a second or successive § 2255 must 

“move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court 

to consider the application,” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); see also id. § 2255(h), and the 

court concluding that “[w]hen a second or successive habeas petition is erroneously 

filed in a district court without the permission of a court of appeals, the district 

court’s only option is to dismiss the petition or transfer it to the court of appeals,” 

Robinson v. Johnson, 313 F.3d 128, 140 (3d Cir. 2002); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h), 

Case 4:09-cr-00346-CCC Document 261 Filed 06/30/16 Page 1 of 2
and that defendant has not petitioned the appropriate court of appeals for leave to 

file a second or successive § 2255 motion, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s motion (Doc. 260) to vacate, set aside, or correct his 

sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DISMISSED without 

prejudice to his right to petition the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Third Circuit for permission to file a second or successive motion 

under § 2255. See R. GOVERNING § 2255 CASES R. 4(b), 9.

2. The court finds no basis to issue a certificate of appealability. See 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); R. GOVERNING § 2255 CASES 11(a).

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER

Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Middle District of Pennsylvania

Case 4:09-cr-00346-CCC Document 261 Filed 06/30/16 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 188 (Monday, September 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 50957]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25705]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting of the National institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis 
Panel:

    Agenda Purpose: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Committee Name: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel.
    Date: October 7-October 8, 1997.
    Time: 9 a.m.
    Place: Holiday Inn, Silver Spring, 8777 Georgia Ave, Silver 
Spring, MD 20910-3763.
    Contact Person: Phyllis D. Artis, Parklawn, Room 9C-26, 5600 
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone: 301, 443-6470.
    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in secs. 552b (c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and persona information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Numbers 93.242, 
93.281, 93.282)

    Dated: September 18, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-25705 Filed 9-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
June 25, 2015 

MD Morgan 

6250 North Keeney Circle 

Prescott Valley, AZ 86314 

Dear MD Morgan: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your June 16, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-2170), 

but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not 

comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any 

further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 
2 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-13-00113-CR

Arnulfo Ernesto HERNANDEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR2707A

Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 27, 2013

DISMISSED

On March 21, 2013, appellant filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is 

granted, and the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 20

- 1225 V
UNPUBLISHED

MICHAEL CALVIN MILLER

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: July 28, 2022

Special Processing Unit (SPU) ; Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession; Table Injury; Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine; Shoulder Injury
Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)

Dylan Wilbanks, Wilbanks Law Firm, P.C., Commerce, GA , for Petitioner.

Sarah Black Rifkin , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On September 18, 2020

, Michael Calvin Miller filed a petition for compensation
under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq. 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administrat ion (“SIRVA”), which meets the Table definition for a SIRVA injury, following the receipt of a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine on November 9, 2018 . Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 23

- 24

. Petitioner further alleges that he received the vaccine in the United States, that he suffered the residual effects of his SIRVA more than six months post

- vaccination, and that neither he nor any other person has filed a civil action or received compensation for his SIRVA . Petition at ¶¶ 2, 22, 25

- 27

. T he case w as assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

1 Because this unpublished R uling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the R uling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute a n unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012 ). CORRECTED2

On July 27, 2022

, R espondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that
P etitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, R espondent believes “that [P]etitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the Qualifications and Aids to interpretation (“QAI”) for SIRVA

. ” Id. at 8 . Respondent further agrees that “based on the present record, [P]etitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id.

In view of R espondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that
P etitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master
### Water powers of the Great Salt Lake basin

By: Ralf Rumel WoolleyNathan Clifford GroverNathan C. GroverW. T. Lee

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp517

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

The Great Salt Lake basin comprises that part of the Great Basin that drains into Great Salt Lake, Utah. It is about 27,000 square miles in area and includes the northern part of Utah, a small part of eastern Nevada, the southeast corner of Idaho, and the southwest corner of Wyoming.

The eastern part of the area consists of mountainous highlands; the western part chiefly of low-lying plains. The lowest portion of the plain is occupied by Great Salt Lake and minor parts by low mountain ranges. The area has no outlet to the sea.

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### Travis W. BATTE et al., v. John Earl MANNING et al.

No. 45507.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Nov. 24, 1969.

Lowell W. Tew, Laurel, for appellant.

W. O. Dillard, Laurel, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1
 
                          SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY



                               BWAY CORPORATION
                               ----------------

                            Brockway Standard, Inc.
                     Brockway Standard (New Jersey), Inc.
                           Milton Can Company, Inc.
                       Brockway Standard (Canada), Inc.
                        BWAY Foreign Sales Corporation


                            BROCKWAY STANDARD, INC.
                            -----------------------
                                        
                          Armstrong Containers, Inc.
                           Davies Can Company, Inc.
                              Plate Masters, Inc.


                     BROCKWAY STANDARD (NEW JERSEY), INC.
                     ------------------------------------

                          Milton Metal Graphics, Inc.
                          Northeast Tin Plate Company

                The Company and all subsidiaries of the Company
                          are Delaware Corporations.
Exhibit 32.1


                        View Systems, Inc.

                 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned executive officer of View Systems, Inc. certifies (the
"Company") pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

(A)     the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter
        ended September 30, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of
        Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(B)     the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
        material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
        of the Company.



Date: April 27, 2006
                                   /s/ Gunther Than
                                   ____________________________________
                                   Gunther Than
                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                   Principal Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

 MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TINAMARIE CRUZ, :

 :

 Plaintiff : 

 :

 v. : CIVIL NO. 4:14-CV-00723

 :

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING : (Judge Brann) 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL :

SECURITY, :

 :

 Defendant :

ORDER

 March 20, 2015

In accordance with the accompanying memorandum, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED THAT:

1. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of Tinamarie

Cruz and against the Commissioner of Social Security, as set forth in the following

paragraph.

2. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying

Tinamarie Cruz disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits is

vacated and the case remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security to:

2.1 Conduct a new administrative hearing and appropriately

evaluate the medical and vocational evidence and the credibility of Cruz. 

Case 4:14-cv-00723-MWB-GS Document 12 Filed 03/20/15 Page 1 of 2
3. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

BY THE COURT:

s/Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge

 

 

2

Case 4:14-cv-00723-MWB-GS Document 12 Filed 03/20/15 Page 2 of 2