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 General Motors Corporation (the
"Corporation") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, G.
Richard Wagoner, Jr., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
   the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
   respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
   Corporation.


/s/ G. RICHARD WAGONER, JR.
---------------------------
G. Richard Wagoner, Jr.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
August 8, 2005



































                                       45
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed

September 24 , 2019.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 19

- 00652

- CR

MONZELLE LAVAN STEPT OE , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 149th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 58852

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Monzelle Lavan Steptoe has attempted to appeal the trial court ’ s order signed July 29, 2019 , denying appellant ’ s request for the appointment of counsel to pur sue post

- conviction relief under article 64.01 of the Texas Code of
Criminal Procedure. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann . art. 64.01(c)

. On August 28, 2019, the State filed a motion to dismiss the appeal contending the trial court’s order denying the appointm ent of counsel is not an appealable order.2

The trial court ’ s denial of a request for the appointment of counsel to pursue post

- conviction relief under article 64.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure is not an immediately appealable order. See Gutie rrez v. State , 307 S.W.3d 318, 323 (Tex. Cri m. App. 2010) (appeal from an order denying appellant ’ s request for appointment of counsel under article 64.01(c) is “premature” because “a motion for appointed counsel is a preliminary matter that precedes the i nitiation of Chapter 64 proceedings”).
Accordingly, the State’s motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is ordered dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Wise and Hassan.

Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

.
EXHIBIT 11
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
(Dollars in thousands except per share amounts)

                                           1998                  1997
                                     Basic     Diluted     Basic     Diluted

Net income                            (2,701)   (2,701)      (694)      (694)

Shares:

Weighted average number of shares
 of common stock outstanding       3,811,706 3,811,706  3,804,085 3,804,085

Shares assumed issued (less shares
 assumed purchased for treasury) on
 stock option agreements                   -     8,947          -      2,559

Rounding                                 294       347        (85)       356
                                     -------- --------  ---------  ---------
                                    3,812,000 3,821,000 3,804,000  3,807,000

Net Income per Common Share             (0.71)    (0.71)    (0.18)    ($0.18)
# Supreme Court of Florida

____________

No. SC17

- 738

____________
ORLANDO NOA, Petitioner,

vs.

FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION,

Respondent.

[July 5, 2018] CORRECTED OPINION

PER CURIAM

.
We initially accepted jurisdiction to review the decision of the Third District

Court of Appeal in Noa v. Florida Insurance Guaranty Ass ’ n , 215 So. 3d 141 (Fla.

3d DCA 2017), based on express and direct conflict

. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.

Const. After further consideration, we conclude that jurisdiction was

improvidently granted. Accordingly, we hereby discharge jurisdiction and dismiss

this review proceeding.

It is so ordered.

CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, QUI NCE, POLSTON, LABARGA

, and
LA WSON, JJ., concur. LEWIS, J., dissents.- 2

-

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED.

Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal

– Direct Conflict of Decisions

Third District

- Case No. 3D1 6

- 1367

(Miami

- Dade County)

Paul B. Feltman of Alvarez, Feltman & DaSilva, P.L., Coral Gables, Florida,

for Petitioner

Hinda Klein of Conroy Simberg, Hollywood, Florida,

for Respondent
Exhibit 99.02


      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 General
Employment Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer
of the Company, 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 results of the operations of the Company.



Date:  May 12, 2003       By:  /s/ Kent M. Yauch
                          Kent M. Yauch
                          Vice President, Chief Financial
                          Officer and Treasurer
                          (Chief financial officer)
# **EXHIBIT 32.1**

#  

# **Certification Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

#  

 

I, Michael T. Fadden, ChiefExecutive Officer (Principal Executive Officer), certify that this quarterlyreport on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained hereinfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Gateway Energy Corporation and its subsidiaries for theperiods presented.

 

 
| Date:  May 13, 2004 | /s/  Michael T. Fadden         |   |
|--------------------------|--------------------------------|--------|
|                     | Michael T. Fadden              |
|                     | Chief Executive Officer        |
|                     | (Principal Executive  Officer) |

 

----
262 La. 312

#### Dr. R. E. DUPRE, d/b/a Dupre’s Hospital & Clinic v. Olide VIDRINE.

No. 52570.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 22, 1972.

In re: Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of St. Landry. 261 So.2d 288.

Application denied; there is no error of law in the judgment complained of.

McCALEB, C. J., is of the opinion that the application should be granted.

SUMMERS, J., is of the opinion the writ should be granted.
#### G. R. CHURCHILL, Appellant, v. Louis LEOPOLD, Appellee.

No. M-367.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 19, 1970.

Rehearing Denied June 16, 1970.

Law Offices of Philip Barton, Gaines-ville, for appellant.

Greene, Ayres, Swigert, Cluster & Tucker, Ocala, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed *738to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and RAWLS and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
#### Jordan HIRSCHELL and Ann Hirschell, Appellants, v. Ronald Douglas SWANN, as father and natural guardian and next friend of Charles Swann, a minor and Ronald Douglas Swann, individually, Appellees.

No. 71-693.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 14, 1971.

*44George C. Vogelsang and Daniel Sor-rentino, Miami, for appellants.

Preddy, Haddad, Kutner & Hardy and Timothy G. Anagnost, Miami, for appel-lees.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: Cloud v. Fallís, Fla. 1959, 110 So.2d 669, discharging cert. Fla. App.1958, 107 So.2d 264.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 979 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 979

    To amend title II of the Social Security Act to expand current 
restrictions on payment of benefits to prisoners to include payments to 
  individuals confined to public institutions pursuant to court order 
  based on a verdict that the individual is not guilty of a criminal 
          offense by reason of insanity or a similar finding.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 18, 1993

  Mr. Jacobs introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title II of the Social Security Act to expand current 
restrictions on payment of benefits to prisoners to include payments to 
  individuals confined to public institutions pursuant to court order 
  based on a verdict that the individual is not guilty of a criminal 
          offense by reason of insanity or a similar finding.

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

SECTION 1. RESTRICTION ON PAYMENT OF BENEFITS TO INDIVIDUALS CONFINED 
              BY COURT ORDER TO PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS PURSUANT TO 
              VERDICTS OF NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY OR OTHER 
              MENTAL DISORDER.

    Section 202(x) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(x)) is 
amended--
            (1) in the heading, by inserting ``and Certain Other 
        Inmates of Public Institutions'' after ``Prisoners'';
            (2) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or is confined in any 
        public institution by a court order pursuant to a verdict that 
        the individual is not guilty of such an offense by reason of 
        insanity (or by reason of a similar finding, such as a mental 
        disease, a mental defect, or mental incompetence),'' after 
        ``applicable law,''; and
            (3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``any individual'' and 
        all that follows and inserting ``any individual confined as 
        described in paragraph (1) if the jail, prison, penal 
        institution, correctional facility, or other public institution 
        to which such individual is so confined is under the 
        jurisdiction of such agency and the Secretary requires such 
        information to carry out the provisions of this section.''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by section 1 shall apply with respect to 
benefits for months commencing after 90 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
Order entered January 30, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01463-CV

YAN BENJAMIN WILHELM ASSOUN, Appellant

V.

ANAIS AMBER GUSTAFSON (A/K/A ANAIS AMBER ASSOUN) AND JOHN 

CHARLES GUSTAFSON, JR., Appellees

On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 429-02323-2014

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s January 28, 2015, unopposed motion for extension of time 

to file appellant’s brief. On January 29, 2015, this Court noted the change in appellant’s counsel 

and on our own motion, we granted appellant an additional thirty days to file his brief. 

Consequently, appellant’s January 28, 2015, motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief 

is DENIED as moot.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 99.1





Certification of CEO and CFO


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 on Form 10-Q of Frawley Corporation (the Company) for the quarterly period ending June
30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Michael P. Frawley as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




/s/    MICHAEL P. FRAWLEY


---

|Name: |  | Michael P. Frawley
|----- |  | ------------------

|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
|------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------

|Date: |  | August 20, 2002
|----- |  | ---------------




This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28305-28306]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13102]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Surrender of License of Small Business Investment Company

    Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small 
Business Administration under the Small Business Investment Act of 
1958, as amended, under Section 309 of the Act and Section 107.1900 of 
the Small Business Administration Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 
107.1900) to

[[Page 28306]]

function as a small business investment company under the Small 
Business Investment Company License No. 07/07-0114 issued to MidStates 
Capital Fund II, L.P., said license is hereby declared null and void.

United States Small Business Administration.

    Dated: April 27, 2018.
A. Joseph Shepard,
Associate Administrator for Investment and Innovation.
[FR Doc. 2018-13102 Filed 6-15-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
#### Arvin Lee OWENS v. SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT.

No. 53858.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 14, 1973.

In re: Arvin Lee Owens applying for remedial writs and writ of habeas corpus.

Writ denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our original or supervisory jurisdiction. The complaint is without merit.
No. 00-916.

#### City of Santa Ana *v.*Tocher, dba Pacific Coast Motoring, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.2



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 Quarterly Report of General Kinetics Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 29, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Sandy B. Sewitch, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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.



/s/ Sandy B. SewitchSandy B. SewitchChief Financial OfficerApril 14, 2004
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 4.1

                           DATA CRITICAL CORPORATION

                AMENDMENT TO PREFERRED SHARES RIGHTS AGREEMENT

     This Amendment to Preferred Shares Rights Agreement (this "Amendment") is
made as of the 19th day of July, 2001 by and between Data Critical Corporation,
a Delaware corporation (the "Company") and Mellon Investor Services LLC,
formerly known as ChaseMellon Shareholder Services, L.L.C., a New Jersey limited
liability company (the "Rights Agent").

                                    RECITALS
                                    --------

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Rights Agent are parties to that certain
Preferred Shares Rights Agreement dated as of June 15, 2000 (the "Agreement").
Any capitalized terms not specifically defined herein shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in the Agreement.

     WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement as provided herein.

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

     1.  Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended by inserting the following
sentence at the end of Section 1(m), which is the definition of "Person" under
the Agreement:

          "Notwithstanding the foregoing, for all purposes under this Agreement,
     the term "Person" shall not include General Electric Company, a New York
     corporation ("GE") or any Affiliates of GE."

     2.  Each party represents and warrants to the other party that it has full
power and authority to execute and deliver this Amendment and to perform the
transactions contemplated hereunder.

     3.  The terms and provisions of the Agreement, as amended hereby, shall
remain in full force and effect.  All references to the "Agreement" contained
therein shall mean the Agreement, as amended by this Amendment.

     4.  This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, all of
which shall be considered one and the same agreement.
<PAGE>

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Company and the Rights Agent has caused
this Amendment to be signed by their respective officers duly authorized as of
the date first written above.

                                    DATA CRITICAL CORPORATION


                                    By: /s/ Richard L. Earnest
                                        ---------------------------
                                    Name: Richard L. Earnest
                                    Title: Chief Executive Officer


                                    MELLON INVESTOR SERVICES LLC


                                    By: /s/ Joseph S. Campbell
                                        ---------------------------
                                    Name: Joseph S. Campbell
                                    Title: Assistant Vice President

                                       2
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: SONNY DALE MOORE,

 Relator.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-10-00177-CR

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Relator, Mr. Sonny Dale Moore, has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus requesting

that this Court order the Judge of the 83rd Judicial District Court of Pecos County, Texas to forward

his application for writ of habeas corpus to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals pursuant to Article

11.07, § 3(c). 

Texas Courts of Appeal have no authority to issue writs of mandamus in criminal law matters

related to post-conviction felony convictions. See TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 11.07, § 5

(Vernon 2005). Such authority is vested exclusively in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. In re

McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.). Because this Court does

not have jurisdiction to consider Relator’s petition, it is DENIED.

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.

September 29, 2010 

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)
September 16, 2014

Memorandum Subject: September 15 and 16, 2014 Voicemail messages between the Fond du

Lac Band ofLake Superior Chippewa and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) From: Lisa Beckham, Environmental EngineeLkJ~

Air Permits Office EPA Region 9 To: Docket- EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0151 This memorandum to docket provides a briefsummary ofthe main discussion points made in the subjectvoicemails during the comment period forthe proposed rule: “General Permits and Permits by Rule forthe Federal Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country.” (79 Federal Register 41846, July 17, 2014) Phone call details: When: Voicemail received from JoyWiecks on September 15, 2014, voicemail

leftwith JoyWiecks on September 15, 2014 Participants: Lisa Beckham, EPA, Region 9

JoyWiecks, Fond du Lac Band ofLake Superior Chippewa The Fond du Lac representative requested a clarification regardingthe requirement to complywith certain existing EPA standards in the compression ignition and spark ignition engines in the draft general permits. The EPA answered the question and offered to be available ifthe Fond du Lac representative had anyfurther questions. This memorandum will be filed in the docketforthe proposed rule and will be available for public review.