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 AMHN, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 5, 2010 (the Report), I, Robert Cambridge, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial 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:



| | (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/ Robert Cambridge       
|Robert Cambridge           
|Principal Executive Officer
|Principal Financial Officer
|November 5, 2010           

A signed original of this
certification 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.



35
<PAGE>

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 the Annual Report of CRYO-CELL International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending November 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jill Taymans, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. (S) 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 results of operations of the
Company.



/s/ Jill Taymans
----------------
Jill Taymans
Vice President, Finance
March 31, 2003

                                       20
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 20

- 00544

- CR

EX PARTE Jorge Amezcua TREVIÑO

From the 186th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. CM074888

Honorable Jefferson Moore , Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ

, JUSTICE RIOS , AND JUSTICE WATKINS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, we reverse the trial court’s ruling

denying bond but deny Treviño’s request to set bond and any other relief not specifically granted

in this final j udgment. The cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

SIGNED May 19, 2021.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 66097]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32916]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals To Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or To Acquire Companies That are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y, (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company that engages either 
directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking 
activity that is listed in Sec.  225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) 
or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to 
banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise 
noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than January 2, 1998.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Betsy Buttrill White, Senior 
Vice President) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001:
    1. Deutsche Bank, Frankfurt am Main, Federal Republic of Germany; 
to acquire through its wholly owned subsidiary, Deutsche Morgan 
Grenfell, Inc., New York, New York, certain assets of National 
Westminster Bank PLC, London, England, and of its wholly owned 
subsidiary NatWest Securities Corporation, New York, New York, and 
thereby engage in financial and investment advisory activities, 
pursuant to Sec.  225.28(b)(6) of the Board's Regulation Y; securities 
brokerage activities; riskless principal activities; private placement 
services; futures commission merchant activities and other 
transactional services, pursuant to Sec.  225.28(b)(7) of the Board's 
Regulation Y; investing and trading activities, pursuant to Sec.  
225.28(b)(8)(ii) of the Board's Regulation Y. Notificant also proposes 
to engage as principal in (1) buying and selling bank-ineligible 
securities; and (2) forward contracts, options, futures, swaps, and 
similar contracts, whether traded on exchanges or not, on bank-
ineligible securities. See Deutsche Bank AG, 79 Fed. Res. Bull 161 
(1995).

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 12, 
1997.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-32916 Filed 12-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2630 

AN ACT 

To amend the Temporary Reauthorization and Study of the 

Emergency Scheduling of Fentanyl Analogues Act to extend until October 2021, a temporary order for fentanylrelated substances. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2630 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Extending Temporary 

3 Emergency Scheduling of Fentanyl Analogues Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY ORDER FOR 

5 FENTANYL-RELATED SUBSTANCES. 

6 Effective as if included in the enactment of the Tem7 porary Reauthorization and Study of the Emergency 

8 Scheduling of Fentanyl Analogues Act (Public Law 116– 

9 114), section 2 of such Act (Public Law 116–114) is 

10 amended by striking ‘‘May 6, 2021’’ and inserting ‘‘Octo11 ber 22, 2021’’. 

12 SEC. 3. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS. 

13 The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 

14 complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, 

15 shall be determined by reference to the latest statement 

16 titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’’ for this 

17 Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 

18 by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, pro19 vided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 

20 vote on passage. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 21, 2021. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2630 

AN ACT 

To amend the Temporary Reauthorization and 

temporary order for fentanyl-related substances. Analogues Act to extend until October 2021, a Study of the Emergency Scheduling of Fentanyl
EX-10.2


   

  Exhibit 10.2

  TERMINATION AGREEMENT

    

  This Termination Amendment ("Agreement") is made effective as of November 3, 2021 by and between:

    

  SiTime Corporation, a US Delaware corporation, having its principal business place at 5451 Patrick Henry Drive, Santa Clara, California 95054 ("SiTime"); and

    

  MegaChips Corporation, a Japan corporation, having its principal business place at 1-1-1 Miyahara Yodogawa­ ku Osaka 532-0003 Japan ("MegaChips").

    

  Recitals:

   

  A. The parties hereto entered into the DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT dated as of April 1, 2015 (as amended and including all Memorandums of Understanding related thereto) ("Original Agreement"); and

    

  B. The parties hereto wish to terminate the Original Agreement by mutual agreement.

    

  NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:

    

  1.Termination of Original Agreement


  Effective as of November 3, 2021, the parties hereto agree to terminate the Original Agreement.

    

  2.Payment


  MegaChips shall pay the outstanding amount of the account payable to SiTime as of the Effective Date, if any, within thirty(30) days after the receipt of invoice from SiTime.

    

  3.Survival


  Pursuant to Section 31 of the Original Agreement, all obligations and duties thereunder which by their nature extend beyond the expiration or termination of the Original Agreement shall survive and remain in effect beyond any expiration or termination thereof.

    

  IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date first above written.

    

    

  
 

    

  SiTime Corporation                                                                            MegaChips Corporation 

    

  Signature: /s/ Rajesh Vashist                                                                Signature:      /s/ Yoshimasa Hayashi 

    

  Name: Rajesh Vashist                                                                           Name:          Yoshimasa Hayashi

    

  Title: Chief Executive Officer                                                              Title:          Senior Managing Director
EXHIBIT 34.1




Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm







The Management Committee


BMW Financial Services NA, LLC





We have examined BMW Financial Services NA, LLC’s (the “Company”) compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange  Commission's Regulation AB for Asset-Backed Securities, BMW Vehicle Owner Trust 2010-A (except for the servicing criteria described in the following paragraph), which the Company has determined as being applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the asset−backed securities transactions being serviced as of December 31, 2011 and for the period from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria based on our examination.





The Company has determined that the servicing criteria in Items 1122(d)(1)(ii), 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(4)(ix), 1122(d)(4)(x) (A)-(C), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii), 1122(d)(4)(xiii), and 1122(d)(4)(xv) are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the asset−backed securities transactions being serviced as of December 31, 2011 and for the period from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011.





Our examination was conducted in accordance with the attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria specified in the first paragraph of this report and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria specified in the first paragraph.





In our opinion, BMW Financial Services NA, LLC complied, in all material respects, with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of December 31, 2011 and for the period from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011.












Roseland, New Jersey


March 27, 2012
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (the “Company”) for the annual period ended December 31, 2021 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel R. Trolio, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Daniel R. Trolio | ​                     |
|----------------------|-----------------------------|
| Name:                | **Daniel R. Trolio**        | ​ |
| Title:               | **Chief Financial Officer** | ​ |

​

Date: March 1, 2022

----
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUI T

________________________ No. 14

- 11555 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 9:13

- cr - 80208

- KLR

- 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,
versus TAIWAN LENARD DRIVER, a.k.a. “Taiwan Martin , ” Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ (October 28, 2014) Before WILSON , JULIE CARNES and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Michael Cohen , appointed counsel for Taiwan Driver in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396,

Case: 14-11555 Date Filed: 10/28/2014 Page: 1 of 22 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel ’ s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED , and Driver’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED
.

Case: 14-11555 Date Filed: 10/28/2014 Page: 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 23.1



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (commission file No. 33-51584), on Form S-8 (commission
file No. 33-68890), and on Form S-8 (commission file No. 333-28571) of our
reports dated February 16, 2001 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedule of Appliance Recycling Centers of
America, Inc., and subsidiaries appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 30, 2000.



                                                         McGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 23, 2001


                                       39
#### Stanley R. SILER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dennis VAVROSKY, Defendant-Appellee, and Stephen L. Phiefer, David B. Howorth, Bruce A. Bottoni, Sylvia E. Stevens, Andrea L. Bushnessl, Cooney & Crew, Clarl, Lindauer, Dunn, Carney, Allen & Higgins, Newcomb, Rankin, Lane, Powell & Spears, Barry L. Groce, David C. Landis, Gerald H. Itkin, Robert L. Winkler, Nancy Ayres, John F. Neupert, Daniel McNeil, Tara J. Schleicher, Kristin Olson, Nancy S. Tauman, David J. Ross, Randall C. Jordan, Hardy Myers, Jr., Hunter B. Emerick, Sylvia Sum, Steven M. Lipoid, Gilbert E. Parker, Jr., and Michael T. Garone, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-1389.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 31, 2002.

Before LOURIE, GAJARSA, and LINN, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

Stanley R. Siler responds to this court’s order which stated that, absent objection, this appeal would be transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Siler appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the District of *468Oregon that directed refund of Siler’s filing fee “as this case should not have been opened by the Clerk.” It appears that the underlying matter involved assertions of copyright to trademark infringement but does not arise under the patent laws or under the Little Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346.

As we previously noted, this court is a court of limited jurisdiction. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1295. Siler argues that the United 0 States should have been a defendant, that the case would then arise under the Tucker Act, and this court would have jurisdiction. We deem this, and Siler’s other arguments concerning jurisdiction, to be without merit.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

This appeal is transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
EXHIBIT 10.12

TRADEMARK ASSIGNMENT AND AGREEMENT

TRADEMARK ASSIGNMENT AND AGREEMENT (this Assignment Agreement) is made effective as of July 30, 2010
(the Effective Date), by and between SEATAC DIGITAL RESOURCES, INC., a Delaware corporation (the Assignee), and AMHN, INC., a Nevada corporation (the Assignor). This Assignment Agreement is made as part of
Assignees acceptance of collateral in partial satisfaction of debt owed by Assignor to Assignee.

WHEREAS, Assignor owns an interest in the mark Americas Minority Health Network, Inc. (the AMHN
Mark), and the goodwill of the business symbolized by such mark, and

WHEREAS, in connection with the
partial satisfaction of certain debt owed by Assignor to the Assignee, Assignee wishes to acquire any interest Assignor may have in the AMHN Mark and the goodwill associated therewith.

NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby expressly
acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

1.      Assignment.    Assignor hereby assigns and transfers
until Assignee, Assignors entire right, title and interest in and to the following:



| | a) | The AMHN Mark;
| | -- | --------------



| | b) | All logos and phrases related to the AMHN Mark; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------



| | c) | The goodwill associated with Assignors interest in the AMHN Mark.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------

2.      Counterparts.    This Assignment Agreement may be signed
in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall be considered one and the same agreement, and shall become effective when both parties have received a counterpart signed by the other party.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Assignor and Assignee have each caused this Assignment Agreement to be executed by its duly
authorized officer as of the date written above.



SEATAC DIGITAL RESOURCES, INC./s/ Robin TjonBy:Robin Tjon, PresidentAMHN, INC./s/ Robert CambridgeBy:Robert Cambridge, Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-27-1997             SEP-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1997             SEP-28-1996
<CASH>                                          89,495                  68,645
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,294,302               1,258,649
<ALLOWANCES>                                    53,306                  77,050
<INVENTORY>                                  2,342,671               2,788,654
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,743,166               4,109,348
<PP&E>                                       4,735,715               5,332,622
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,400,291               2,235,079
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,151,955               7,257,623
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,858,447               2,472,438
<BONDS>                                      1,924,395               1,678,728
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                     1,186,192               1,186,192
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,524,294               1,398,984
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,151,955               7,257,623
<SALES>                                     12,858,765              12,498,993
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,992,262              12,666,978
<CGS>                                        9,498,045               8,982,259
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,565,646              11,902,279
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               356,195                 341,797
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,000                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             301,306                 209,124
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                180,199                 422,902
<INCOME-TAX>                                    54,889                 132,673
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            180,199                 422,902
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   125,310                 290,229
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02                     .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02                     .05
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00586-CR

Cynthia Gail Priddy

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 78th District Court

of Wichita County (52,948-B)

October 16, 2014

Opinion by Justice Meier

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

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

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bill Meier 

 Justice Bill Meier