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

The undersigned hereby
certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Diedrich Coffee, Inc. (the Company), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:



| |  |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 16, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Dated: November 2, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ J. Russell Phillips
|                        |  |  |  | J. Russell Phillips    
|                        |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer

Note: A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Diedrich Coffee, Inc. and will be retained by Diedrich Coffee, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Vicky FONTENOT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph Ronald DAIGLE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 6548.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Aug. 15, 1978.

*1356Vidrine & Wimberly, Andrew J. Yidrine, Church Point, for defendant-appellant.

Cline, Miller, Richard & Miller; Jack Derrick Miller, Rayne, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before CULPEPPER, DOMENGEAUX and CUTRER, JJ.

DOMENGEAUX, Judge.

MOTION TO DISMISS

We issued, ex proprio motu, a rule to show cause why defendant-appellant’s appeal should not be dismissed due to his failure to timely move for an appeal. Appellant has not answered the rule.

We dismiss the appeal in part and maintain the appeal in part.

On October 6, 1977, the trial court signed a judgment making past due alimony exec-utory, and denied defendant’s request for a decrease in alimony pendente lite. On December 7, 1977, defendant applied for and obtained an order for a devolutive appeal. No bond was required since defendant is proceeding in forma pauperis. LSA-C.C.P. arts. 5181 and 5185.

Notice of judgment was mailed by the clerk of court on October 6, 1977. Since no new trial was requested, the delay for perfecting an appeal began on October 18, 1977. LSA-C.C.P. art. 2087.

An appeal from a judgment denying a rule to decrease alimony must be taken within 30 days from the applicable date provided in LSA-C.C.P. art. 2087(1)-(3). LSA-C.C.P. arts. 3943 and 3942. *Zaunbrecher v. Zaunbrecher,*338 So.2d 797 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1976). Thus, defendant had until November 16, 1977 within which to perfect his appeal as to this aspect of the judgment. Since the appeal was not perfected until December 7, 1977, this portion of the appeal must be dismissed.

However, the appeal is timely as to that aspect of the judgment making past due alimony executory. Such a judgment is not limited to thirty days under the provisions of LSA-C.C.P. art. 3943. *Mertens*v. *Mertens,*308 So.2d 506 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1975).

For the reasons assigned, the appeal from that portion of the judgment rejecting the request for a decrease in alimony is dismissed. As to that portion of the judgment making past due alimony executory, the appeal is maintained.

Appeal maintained in part, and dismissed in part.
#### Edward WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2533.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 5, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Terri L. THOMAS, a minor, by and through her mother and next friend Kathryn Thomas and Kathryn Thomas, Individually, Respondents.

No. 43612.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 12, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 27, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 273 So.2d 117.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
252 La. 176

#### DELTA PAVING COMPANY v. Elmer WOOLRIDGE, d/b/a Woolridge Construction Company et al.

No. 49243.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 17, 1968.

In re: Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc., and English Realty Co., Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 209 So.2d 581.

The application is denied. There appears no error of law in the judgment complained of.
#### FINCHER MOTORS, INC. v. WHALEN.

No. 38477.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 142 (Tuesday, July 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 35018]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15747]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Career Development 
Programs in Diabetes Research for Endocrinologists.
    Date: July 25, 2018.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Thomas A. Tatham, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, 
Room 7021, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 
594-3993, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2054415448414d54604d41494c0e4e49480e474f56"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4135203529202c35012c20282d6f2f28296f262e37">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: July 18, 2018.
David D. Clary,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-15747 Filed 7-23-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, each of the undersigned officers of GlycoGenesys, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:



|(1) | the Companys quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the Three Months Ended June 30, 2005 (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 as of and for the periods
presented in the Report.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: August 15, 2005



|       |  |                    |  |        |  |                     
|------ |  | ------------------ |  | ------ |  | --------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ John W. Burns  |  | By:    |  | /s/ Bradley J Carver
|Name:  |  | John W. Burns      |  | Name:  |  | Bradley J Carver    
|Title: |  | SVP, CFO Secretary |  | Title: |  | CEO President
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Evergreen Solar, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard G.
Chleboski, 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 to 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 Company.

/s/ Richard G. Chleboski

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

Richard G. Chleboski
Chief Financial Officer
August 13, 2004

                                       33
#### APPROVED DRY WALL CONSTRUCTION, INC., Appellant, v. MORGAN PROPERTIES, INC., a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 71-1227.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 13, 1972.

Rehearing Denied July 7, 1972.

*244Shalle Stephen Fine, Miami, for appellant.

Kenney & Kreeger, Miami, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., PEARSON, J„ and HARDING, MAJOR B., Associate Judge.

PEARSON, Judge.

The appellant, Approved Dry Wall Construction, Inc., seeks review of a dismissal of its amended complaint seeking the foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien. The appellees are Morgan Properties, Inc., alleged to be the general contractor on the job involved; Saul J. Morgan Enterprises, Inc., alleged to be the owner of the real property involved; and Travelers Indemnity Company of Hartford, Connecticut, alleged to be the surety upon a bond filed pursuant to the provisions of Fla.Stat. § 713.23, F.S.A. Appellant takes alternative positions on this appeal. First, the appellant argues that his complaint was sufficient as a complaint to foreclose a mechanic’s lien under the holding of Boux v. East Hillsborough Apartments, Inc., Fla.App.1969, 218 So.2d 202. See also Yell-For-Pennell, Inc. v. Joab, Inc., Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 438. Second, he urges that even if the complaint was insufficient as a complaint to enforce a mechanic’s lien, it was sufficient as an action upon its contract with the general contractor.

We hold that the complaint was not sufficient because it did not contain sufficient allegations to excuse the failure to serve the notice required by Fla.Stat. § 713.06, F.S.A. The case of Boux v. East Hillsborough Apartments, Inc., supra, is not applicable because the owner of the property in the present case is not a corporation wholly owned by the contracting party nor were the managing officers alleged to be so identical that notice to one would serve as notice to the other. We therefore affirm so much of the order of dismissal as dismisses the defendants Saul J. Morgan Enterprises, Inc. (the owner) and Travelers Indemnity Company of Hartford, Connecticut (the surety on the bond).

We hold that the complaint is sufficient to state a cause of action for recovery on the contract which is attached to the complaint and signed by the general contractor Morgan Properties, Inc. In fairness to the trial court it should be pointed out that appellee does not urge here that the complaint is not sufficient for that purpose. It is suggested that because appellant as plaintiff concentrated its argument before the lower court primarily upon the lien feature of the complaint that the trial court may have overlooked the contract aspect of the complaint. We think that in an attempt to expedite the settlement of this dispute, the judgment of dismissal should be reversed insofar as it dismissed the defendant, Morgan Properties, Inc., and that the cause should be remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the views herein expressed. See Emery v. International Glass and Mfg., Inc., Fla.App.1971, 249 So.2d 496.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings.
#### Walter Lee HAYES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-600.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 15, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Peter B. THOMAS, Appellant, v. Louis P. SAMUELS and Elaine Samuels, his wife; Myron H. Maxwell, and Irene B. Maxwell, his wife; Yorke Doliner and Lillie Doliner, his wife; I. Z. Mann & Associates of Daytona Beach, Inc., a Florida corporation; Atlantic Park Corp., a Florida corporation; North Halifax Development Corporation, a Florida corporation; Edward Sirkin, Trustee; and Ian of Daytona Beach, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees.

No. 1-155.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Feb. 6, 1968.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 27, 1968.

PER CURIAM.

Interlocutory appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the NuCo2
Inc. Consolidated Financial Statements as of September 30, 1999 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such Consolidated Financial Statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                            1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                     SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                                               389,733
<SECURITIES>                                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                      7,208,847
<ALLOWANCES>                                                         647,077
<INVENTORY>                                                          223,777
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                   8,567,280
<PP&E>                                                           124,832,817
<DEPRECIATION>                                                    22,965,995
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                   142,499,521
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                             11,685,528
<BONDS>                                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                               7,217
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                                        45,345,042
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                     142,499,521
<SALES>                                                           13,594,577
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                  13,594,577
<CGS>                                                              6,996,345
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                     13,540,238
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                 2,436,685
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                   (2,380,422)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                               (2,380,422)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                                      (2,380,422)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                           (.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                           (.33)


</TABLE>
#### James HASTINGS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-353.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 12, 1971.

Walter N. Colbath, Jr., Public Defender, and Carl V. M. Coffin, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Rodney Durrance, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

On the basis of our review of the briefs and record on appeal which have been given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment and sentence of the trial court is affirmed on the authority of Williams v. State, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 654, and Winkfield v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 209 So.2d 468.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

Statement of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350


      In connection with the Annual Report of Highlands Bankshares, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, as the chief executive officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003,
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/ C. E. PORTER
                                         -------------------------
                                         C. E. Porter
                                         Chief Executive Officer





Date:  March  24, 2006
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Petitioner,
v. NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND No. 96-2625 DRY DOCK COMPANY, Respondent, and SUSAN CAMPBELL, Claimant. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (94-240) Argued: July 7, 1997 Decided: September 2, 1997 Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and Joseph F. ANDERSON, Jr., United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.

_________________________________________________________________ Remanded with instructions by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: Joshua Thomas Gillelan, II, Senior Attorney, Office of the Solicitor, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,WASHINGTON, D.C., for Petitioner. Benjamin McMullan Mason, MASON & MASON, P.C., Newport News, Virginia, for Respondent. ON BRIEF: J. Davitt McAteer, Acting Solicitor of Labor, Carol A. De Deo, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, UNITEDSTATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM:The present appeal was taken based upon Section 8(f) of the Longshoreman's Act. 33 U.S.C. § 908(f). This case was decided by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on September 21, 1993. After theALJ reached his decision, this court decided Director, OWCP v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. (Harcum) , 8 F.3d 175 (4thCir. 1993). The court remands the matter to the ALJ for further findings in light of Harcum
. REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS 2
#### Gary W. WILLIS v. Kenneth G. EVERETT et al.

No. 62812.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 22, 1978.

In re: Gary W. Willis, applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Beauregard. 359 So.2d 1080.

Writ denied.
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 12-1382

HENRY MAZARIEGOS-PAIZ,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on October 25, 2013 is

corrected as follows:

On page 2, line 9, Footnote 1 is to be added at the end of the

word "them." as follows:

We caution that we deal here exclusively with the

jurisdictional issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies. The

government has not raised any question of either waiver or

forfeiture, see United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733-34 (1993)

(discussing those doctrines), and we take no view as to their

applicability or operation in judicial review of agency orders.

Every other footnote thereafter should be renumbered

accordingly.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 4905

_____________________________
A MANDA R ENEE G ULLEDGE , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. J. Scott Duncan , Judge

. July 10, 2019

P ER C URIAM

. Upon review pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct . 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we find no error with Appellant’s judgment or sentence, and affirm. We write only to correct a scrivener’s error on Appellant’s written sentence. See Ashley v. State , 850 So. 2d 1265, 1268 n. 3 (Fla. 2003) (defining a scriven er’s error as a written clerical error that is not “the result of a judicial determination or error”); Rivera v. State , 117 So. 3d 449

- 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (remanding for correction of the written sentences to reflect the oral pronouncement in an Anders appeal). In the written sentence, the sentence imposed on count 3 is erroneously listed as count 1. On remand, the trial court shall correct the error.2 W ETHERELL , J AY , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposit ion of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Megan Long, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee

, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee

, for Appellee.