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



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Varian, Inc. for the period ended
March 28, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date of this certification (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Report
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of Varian, Inc.



|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|Dated: May 6, 2008                     
|                                       
|/s/ GARRY W. ROGERSON Garry W. Rogerson
|President and Chief Executive Officer  



A signed original of this written
statement as required by Section 906 has been provided to Varian, Inc. and will be retained by Varian, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### William GREENLEE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-1029.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 12, 1970.

William Greenlee, in pro per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ-

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of his appeal, and the appellant having filed his response thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the *323appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
#### Earl Larry MASCAREL v. STATE.

No. 38212.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 216 So.2d 236.
II 

Calendar No. 498 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3698 

[Report No. 118–219] 

To amend title 11, District of Columbia Official Code, to revise references 

in such title to individuals with intellectual disabilities. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 31, 2024 

Mr. MORAN (for himself and Mr. CASEY) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2024 

Reported by Mr. PETERS, without amendment 

A BILL 

To amend title 11, District of Columbia Official Code, to 

revise references in such title to individuals with intellectual disabilities. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Words Matter for the 

5 District of Columbia Courts Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 3698 RS

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES TO INDIVIDUALS WITH INTELLEC2 TUAL DISABILITIES. 

3 (a) JURISDICTION OF UNITED STATES DISTRICT

4 COURT.—Section 11–501(2)(D), District of Columbia Of5 ficial Code, is amended by striking ‘‘substantially retarded 

6 persons’’ and inserting ‘‘persons with moderate intellec7 tual disabilities’’. 

8 (b) JURISDICTION OF SUPERIOR COURT.—Section 

9 11–921(a)(4)(D), District of Columbia Official Code, is 

10 amended by striking ‘‘substantially retarded persons’’ and 

11 inserting ‘‘persons with moderate intellectual disabilities’’. 

12 (c) JURISDICTION OF FAMILY COURT.—Section 11– 

13 1101(a)(15), District of Columbia Official Code, is amend14 ed by striking ‘‘the at least moderately mentally retarded’’ 

15 and inserting ‘‘persons with moderate intellectual disabil16 ities’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Calendar No. 498 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3698 

[Report No. 118–219] 

A BILL 

To amend title 11, District of Columbia Official 

uals with intellectual disabilities. Code, to revise references in such title to individSEPTEMBER 10, 2024 

Reported without amendment 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Exhibit 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tasco International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Adrienne Humphreys, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
12th day of February, 2003.


/s/ Adrienne Humphreys
-----------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 10-610 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENSE 

Research and Development 

 Agreement Between 

the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and the CZECH REPUBLIC 

Signed at Brussels June 10, 2010 

with 

Annexes 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
CZECH REPUBLIC 

 Defense: Research and Development 

 Agreement signed at Brussels June 10, 2010; 

 Entered into force June 10, 2010. 

 With annexes.
Exhibit 31

CERTIFICATION

I, Worth Harris Carter, Jr., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Bank Building Corporation;

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

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

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers
internal control over financial reporting; and

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability
to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.

Date: May 1, 2006



/s/ Worth Harris Carter, Jr.Worth Harris Carter, Jr.Chairman of the Board, President, Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                          8,693
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,693
<CGS>                                            5,789
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,789
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,557
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    22
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 146
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,294)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,294)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,294)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.12)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 205 (Thursday, October 23, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 55297]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28024]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Revocation of License of Small Business Investment Company

    Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small 
Business Administration by the Final Order of the United States 
District Court for the Central District of California, dated September 
2, 1997, the United States Small Business Administration hereby revokes 
the license of ABC Capital Corporation, a California corporation, to 
function as a small business investment company under the Small 
Business Investment Company License No. 09/09-5352 issued to ABC 
Capital Corporation on January 9, 1985 and said license is hereby 
declared null and void as of October 6, 1997.

    Dated: October 6, 1997.

United States Small Business Administration.
Don A. Christensen,
Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. 97-28024 Filed 10-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  ss.1350),
the undersigned, Ronald J. Radcliffe, Chief Financial Officer of Empire Resorts,
Inc.,  a Delaware  corporation  (the  "Company"),  does hereby  certify,  to his
knowledge, that:

The Annual Report Form 10-K for the year ended  December 31, 2006 of the Company
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report
fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

March 14, 2007

By: /s/ Ronald J. Radcliffe
    ----------------------------
    Ronald J. Radcliffe
    Chief Financial Officer
```
SUPPLEMENT TO THE CURRENTLY EFFECTIVE PROSPECTUSES

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

                         DWS Core Plus Allocation Fund
                               DWS Micro Cap Fund
                     DWS Disciplined Long/Short Value Fund

Upon the  recommendation of Deutsche  Investment  Management  Americas Inc. (the
"Advisor"), the Board of each of the above-listed funds approved the termination
and  liquidation  of  the  funds  effective  on  or  about  June  5,  2009  (the
"Liquidation Date"). Accordingly, each of the above-listed funds will redeem all
of  its  shares   outstanding  on  the  Liquidation  Date.  The  costs  of  each
liquidation,  including the mailing of  notification  to  shareholders,  will be
borne by each respective fund subject to the Advisor's agreement to maintain the
fund's total operating  expenses at specified levels.  Shareholders may exchange
their shares for the same class of another DWS fund or redeem their shares prior
to the  Liquidation  Date.  Shareholders  who elect to exchange into another DWS
fund may do so at net asset  value  minus any  applicable  redemption  fee,  and
without payment of any contingent  deferred sales charge ("CDSC").  Shareholders
who elect to redeem their shares prior to the Liquidation  Date will receive the
net asset  value  per share for all  shares  they  redeem  minus any  applicable
redemption fees and CDSC on such redemption date.  Shareholders whose shares are
redeemed by a fund on the Liquidation  Date will receive the net asset value per
share for all shares they own on the  Liquidation  Date without the deduction of
any redemption fees or CDSC. The exchange or redemption of shares,  on or before
the Liquidation Date, may be a taxable event for shareholders with the exception
of those  participating in individual  retirement  accounts,  qualified  defined
contribution and defined benefit plans or other qualified retirement vehicles.

In conjunction  with approving the  termination  and  liquidation of each of the
above-listed funds, the Board of each fund further approved closing the funds to
new investments  effective  immediately,  except that qualified retirement plans
that  currently  offer the funds as an  investment  option may continue to offer
them to their participants until the Liquidation Date.

               Please Retain This Supplement for Future Reference


                                                                     [Logo]DWS
                                                                   INVESTMENTS
                                                           Deutsche Bank Group

March 25, 2009
DMF-3685
#### CITY OF MIAMI, Petitioner, v. Willie SHINHOLSTER, Respondent.

No. 69-448.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Oct. 9, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 31, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
**EXHIBIT 21**Subsidiaries of ESS Technology, Inc.**•** ESS Technology Holdings, Inc. — California **•** ESS Technology International, Inc. — Cayman Islands **•** ESS British Columbia Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Silicon Analog Systems Corporation) — British Columbia **•** ESS (Far East) Ltd. — Hong Kong **•** ESS Technology International (Korea) Ltd. — Korea **•** ESS KK — Japan **•** ESS Electronics Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. — China **•** ESS Electronics Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (inactive) — China **•** Pictos Technologies, Inc. — Delaware **•** Zing Network, Inc — California **•** Zing Networks Ltd. (formerly known as Pix.com, Ltd.) — Israel **•** Divio, Inc. — California
#### Lorraine JOBSON v. Donald HODGE.

No. 60320.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 7, 1977.

In re: Lorraine Jobson applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo. 347 So .2d 57.

Writ denied. Under the particular facts and circumstances, there is no error in the result.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3483 

To increase the potential penalty for property damage at the National Gallery 

of Art and certain other buildings and grounds. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 13, 2023 

Mr. VANCE (for himself and Mr. BRAUN) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration 

A BILL 

To increase the potential penalty for property damage at 

the National Gallery of Art and certain other buildings 

and grounds. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Consequences for Cli5 mate Vandals Act’’. 

2 

•S 3483 IS

1 SEC. 2. PENALTIES FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE AT THE NA2 TIONAL GALLERY OF ART AND CERTAIN 

3 OTHER BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS. 

4 Section 6307(b)(1) of title 40, United States Code, 

5 is amended by striking ‘‘five’’ and inserting ‘‘ten’’. 

Æ
#### Darrell Gene BLACKBURN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-467.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 27, 1973.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Steven Lipton, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s post conviction motion to vacate his judgment of conviction and sentence on charges of (1) breaking and entering a dwelling and unlawfully assaulting a person therein and (2) attempted crime against nature.

Prior to the initiation of these post conviction proceedings, appellant sought review of his conviction in a direct appeal to this court. We affirmed the conviction. Blackburn v. State, Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 625. Defendant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus to the Supreme Court of Florida was denied.

On May 26, 1973, defendant’s writ of ha-beas corpus to the U.S. District Court was dismissed “without prejudice to the petitioner to fully exhaust his state remedies.”

Defendant on May 27, 1973 filed his motion to vacate sentence pursuant to CrPR 3.850, 33 F.S.A., which, after hearing argument thereon, the trial court denied and this appeal followed.

On appeal appellant contends that where the record indicates the state relied upon the testimony of an alleged victim of a prior similar crime for which the defendant had been acquitted, the trial court erred in not applying retroactively the decisions of Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970) and Wingate v. Wainwright, 5 Cir., 464 F.2d 209 which were rendered subsequent to appellant’s conviction and indicated that use of such evidence at trial violates a defend*31ant’s rights under the double jeopardy-clause of the Fifth Amendment.

We find the contention that the above decisions rendered subsequent to defendant’s convictions should be applied retroactively is lacking in merit. See Brewer v. State, Fla. 1972, 264 So.2d 833.

Accordingly, the order of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.
# L_2005011EN.01002601.xml

| 14.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 11/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 11/26

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 51/2005

of 13 January 2005

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the import of maize issued in Regulation (EC) No 2276/2004

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 12(1) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported in Portugal from third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2276/2004 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported in Portugal from third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2276/2004 (2).

| (2) | Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 (3), allows the Commission to decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 and on the basis of the tenders notified, to make no award. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 (3), allows the Commission to decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 and on the basis of the tenders notified, to make no award.

| (3) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 a maximum reduction in the duty should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 a maximum reduction in the duty should not be fixed.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 7 to 13 January 2005 in response to the invitation to tender for the reduction in the duty on imported maize issued in Regulation (EC) No 2276/2004.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 14 January 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 13 January 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 396, 31.12.2004, p. 34.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 177, 28.7.1995, p. 4. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

3

---
#### Herbert J. VERRETT v. CHOTIN TRANSPORTATION, INC.

No. 62137.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 12, 1978.

In re: Chotin Transportation, Inc., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Cameron.

Denied.