alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32(d)**

 

**The Dayton Power and LightCompany**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002

 

 

Theundersigned officers of The Dayton Power and Light Company (the “Issuer”)hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Issuer’sQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008,which this certificate accompanies, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the informationcontained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Issuers as of the dates and for theperiods expressed therein.

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, orotherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within theelectronic version of this statement required by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, has been provided to the Issuer and will beretained by the Issuers and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

Signed:

 

 

 
| /s/  John J. Gillen                                           |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| John  J. Gillen                                               |   |
| Senior  Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |

 

Date:April 23, 2008

 

The foregoing certificate is being furnished solelypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Issuer’sAnnual Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 

55

----
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350


(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)





In connection with the quarterly report of DGT Holdings Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark A. Zorko, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, 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 Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Mark A. ZorkoName:  Mark A. ZorkoTitle:   Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)Date:   June 10, 2011








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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 certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
255 La. 796

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Gary GUILLOT.

No. 50452.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 30, 1970.

In re: Gary Guillot applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

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 Earl Edwards, Judge of the Twelfth Judicial District, Court for the Parish of Avoyelles, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 10th day of June, 1970, 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 its attorneys shall show cause, in this court, on the date aforesaid, at 11 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.

Writ granted, limited to assignment of error number 3.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Thomas C. Cook, Esq., President, hereby certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Banker's Store,
Inc. (the "small business issuer");

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 the 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 maintain in disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
small business issuer;

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

a. 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; or

c. Have reported such deficiencies, weaknesses, fraud material or not that
involves management or others as it have been discovered.



/s/ Thomas C. Cook, Esq.
------------------------
Thomas C. Cook, Esq.
President

May 22, 2009

<PAGE>
#### Robert Kelly PALMER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-418.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 5, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: JAIME LUEVANO,

Relator.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-10-00170-CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

IN MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Jaime Luevano, pro se, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting this Court to

compel the District Attorney and Sheriff of El Paso County to “stop their pattern of harassment

campaign and to conspire . . .” against Relator.

This Court does not have authority to issue a writ of mandamus against the Respondents

in this case. See TEX.GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(b)(Vernon 2004). Therefore, the mandamus

relief requested is DENIED.

July 7, 2010

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

January 5, 2024

SC-2023-0848

Ex parte M.P. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE 

COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: M.P. v. DeKalb County Department 

of Human Resources) (DeKalb Juvenile Court: JU-22-73.02; Civil 

Appeals: CL-2023-0184).

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT

WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above 

referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the 

Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was 

entered in this cause on January 5, 2024:

Writ Denied. No Opinion. Shaw, J. -- Parker, C.J., and Bryan, 

Mendheim, and Mitchell, JJ., concur.

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified 

on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered 

by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are 

hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness 

my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7259 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7259

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To allow acceleration certificates awarded under the Patents for 
                  Humanity Program to be transferable.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Patents for Humanity Program 
Improvement Act''.

SEC. 2. TRANSFERABILITY OF ACCELERATION CERTIFICATES.

    (a) In General.--A holder of an acceleration certificate issued 
pursuant to the Patents for Humanity Program (established in the notice 
entitled ``Humanitarian Awards Pilot Program'', published at 77 Fed. 
Reg. 6544 (February 8, 2012)), or any successor thereto, of the United 
States Patent and Trademark Office, may transfer (including by sale) 
the entitlement to such acceleration certificate to another person.
    (b) Requirement.--An acceleration certificate transferred under 
subsection (a) shall be subject to any other applicable limitations 
under the notice entitled ``Humanitarian Awards Pilot Program'', 
published at 77 Fed. Reg. 6544 (February 8, 2012), or any successor 
thereto.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 25, 2020.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
116th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 7259

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To allow acceleration certificates awarded under the Patents for 
                  Humanity Program to be transferable.
```
#### CHAMPION MAP CORPORATION, Appellant, v. CHAMCO, INC., R. W. Martin, K. A. Martin, H. L. Henson, and J. W. Henson, Appellees.

No. 70-903.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 10, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Joe HENRY, Appellant, v. Sam BOWMAN, Appellee.

No. 71-73.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 23, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 720 

To deem Federal employees excepted from furlough during a Government 

shutdown in fiscal year 2019 to be eligible for unemployment compensation, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 23, 2019 

Mr. BROWN of Maryland (for himself, Mr. RASKIN, Mr. TRONE, Ms. NORTON, 

Mr. BEYER, Mrs. TRAHAN, and Ms. WEXTON) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To deem Federal employees excepted from furlough during 

a Government shutdown in fiscal year 2019 to be eligible 

for unemployment compensation, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY FOR UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSA4 TION DURING GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN. 

5 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during 

6 fiscal year 2019, with respect to any lapse in appropria7 tions beginning on or after December 22, 2018, any Fed8 eral employee who is excepted from furlough and is not 

9 being paid due to a lapse in appropriations shall be 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 720 IH

1 deemed to be separated from Federal service and eligible 

2 for unemployment compensation benefits under sub3 chapter I of chapter 85 of title 5, United States Code, 

4 with no waiting period for such eligibility to accrue. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### John David RANKIN, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Adult Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent.

No. P-225.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 13, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7339 

To direct the Director of the National Institute of Technologies to undertake 

certain activities with respect to the artificial intelligence workforce, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 25, 2020 

Mr. COHEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Science, Space, and Technology 

A BILL 

To direct the Director of the National Institute of Technologies to undertake certain activities with respect to 

the artificial intelligence workforce, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘AI Careers Act of 

5 2020’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7339 IH

1 SEC. 2. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE EDUCATION AND WORK2 FORCE INITIATIVE. 

3 The Director of the National Institute of Standards 

4 and Technology, in consultation with the National Science 

5 Foundation, other relevant Federal agencies, academia, 

6 Federal laboratories, industry, and nonprofit organiza7 tions, shall— 

8 (1) develop taxonomies and lexica to describe 

9 skills, jobs, and workforce requirements related to 

10 artificial intelligence for the purpose of guiding ca11 reer development, education, and training activities 

12 in industry, academia, nonprofit organizations, and 

13 the Federal Government; 

14 (2) identify gaps in the artificial intelligence 

15 workforce, including in the public and private sec16 tors; and 

17 (3) create criteria and measurements for cre18 dentials in careers related to artificial intelligence. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
The HONORABLE RICHARD H. KYLE, United *

States District Judge for the District of

Minnesota, sitting by designation.

 The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Chief Judge, United States 1

District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

_____________

No. 95-3234

_____________

Michael R. Williams, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

John Langland; John Doe, I-III, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendants-Appellees. *

_____________

Submitted: April 12, 1996

 Filed: July 1, 1996

_____________

Before WOLLMAN and HANSEN, Circuit Judges, and KYLE, District

*

Judge.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Michael R. Williams appeals from the district court's dismissal

1

without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming deliberate

indifference to his alleged serious medical needs. The district court

dismissed the action because Williams failed to timely serve the defendants

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Williams contends that the district

court abused its discretion in dismissing his lawsuit because he offered

explanations which
 Prior to argument in this case, Williams filed a motion to 2

strike the response of Correctional Medical Services and to

consider the response filed by the State of Missouri as the brief

of the Appellees or, alternatively, to strike the State's brief

as well. We ordered Williams' motion to be submitted with the

case and, after a careful review, it is hereby denied.

-2-

constitute good cause to excuse his failure to timely effect service on the

defendants. Specifically, Williams claims that the court articulated the

proper standard for determining whether good cause exists but subsequently

applied a different and improper standard to the facts of this case. 

After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that the district

court correctly dismissed Williams' lawsuit for the reasons set forth in

its well-reasoned opinion. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the

district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.2

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                  Certification Pursuant To Section 906 Of The
                           Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Datascope Corp.
(the "Company") for the Quarter ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         o        the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

         o        the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.


February 12, 2004



                            /s/ Lawrence Saper
                           -------------------------------------------------
                           Lawrence Saper
                           Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer




                            /s/ Murray Pitkowsky
                           -------------------------------------------------
                           Murray Pitkowsky
                           Senior V.P., Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>Manuel Figueroa, Defendant-Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The People appeal from an order of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Laurence E. Busching, J.), dated May 23, 2016, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the information.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Order (Laurence E. Busching, J.), dated May 23, 2016, affirmed.</p><p>The information charging defendant with possessing a "black pump shotgun" without the requisite permit/certificate of registration (<i>see </i>Administrative Code of City of NY §§ 10-303, 10-304) was jurisdictionally defective, since it lacked the necessary nonhearsay allegations which would establish, "if true, every element of the offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof" (CPL 100.40[1][c]; 100.15[3]; <i>see People v Alejandro</i>, 70 NY2d 133 [1987]). In particular, the deponent police officer's sworn statement that his "search" of the "New York City database (Automated License and Permit System [ALPS]) maintained by the NYPD . . . revealed that [defendant] is not a holder of a New York City permit/certificate" for the firearm at issue, did not constitute a nonhearsay allegation or an allegation that "would be admissible under some hearsay rule exception" (<i>People v Casey</i>, 95 NY2d 354, 361 [2000]). Inasmuch as the deponent did not describe himself as a person having "legal custody" of the aforementioned police department records, his statement regarding the lack of any record or entry in a record that defendant possessed the requisite permit or certificate was inadmissible (<i>see</i> CPLR 4521; CPL § 60.10).</p><p>Nor were any facts alleged in the information to support the conclusion that the ALPS database was a business record of the NYPD (<i>see</i> CPLR 4518; CPL § 60.10; <i>see People v Cratsley</i>, 86 NY2d 81 [1995]) so as to render admissible deponent's statement that his search of the database revealed a lack of any record that defendant possessed the required permit or registration (<a href="../2011/2011_07725.htm" target="_blank"><i>see generally Arias v Skyline Windows, Inc</i>., 89 AD3d 460</a> [2011]; <a href="../2007/2007_07073.htm" target="_blank"><i>Dickson v City of New York</i>, 43 AD3d 809</a> [2007]). We note in this regard that we have never heard of the ALPS database and have found no reported case referencing it. Nor, despite an inquiry at oral argument, did either counsel demonstrate any specific knowledge about the database.</p><p>Accordingly, Criminal Court properly dismissed the information as jurisdictionally defective (<a href="../2007/2007_09070.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Jones,</i> 9 NY3d 259</a> [2007]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><p>I concur I concur I concur</p><br>Decision Date: May 24, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>5
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             		9-MOS		
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>		                       	JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>	                            		MAR-31-1997
<CASH>				                               	  	1,535			
<SECURITIES>					                           11,766
<RECEIVABLES>		                             	2,633
<ALLOWANCES>		                                	140	
<INVENTORY>		                               	2,366		
<CURRENT-ASSETS>		                         	22,129
<PP&E>					                                	17,172
<DEPRECIATION>				 	                        10,957
<TOTAL-ASSETS>				                         	33,215
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>		                    		4,437
<BONDS>					                                    	0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>		 	                                		0
<COMMON>					                                 	557
<OTHER-SE>					                            	28,221				
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              		33,215
<SALES>				                               		18,105
<TOTAL-REVENUES>		                        		18,653
<CGS>						                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>				                          	16,450				
<OTHER-EXPENSES>			                           	126
<LOSS-PROVISION>				                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>			                          	82
<INCOME-PRETAX>		                          		1,995
<INCOME-TAX>				                              	596
<INCOME-CONTINUING>			                      	1,399
<DISCONTINUED>					                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>		                               	0
<CHANGES>					                                  	0					
<NET-INCOME>					                            1,399
<EPS-PRIMARY>				        	                     .31
<EPS-DILUTED>			                             		.31


</TABLE>
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-20-00203-CV

JOSEPH GULLIKSEN, Appellant

V.

BEVERLY JO GULLIKSEN A/K/A 

BEVERLY JO ROSING, Appellee

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 367th District Court

of Denton County (14-00440-367)

May 6, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker

JUDGMENT

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

was error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is reversed and judgment is rendered that Appellee Beverly Jo Gulliksen a/k/a 

Beverly Jo Rosing take nothing on her petition. 

It is further ordered that appellee Beverly Jo Gulliksen a/k/a Beverly Jo Rosing

shall bear the costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. 
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Brian Walker

 Justice Brian Walker