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 IZEA, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2013 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Edward Murphy, President and Chief Executive 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 result of operations of the Company.





Dated: August 14, 2013











/s/ Edward MurphyEdward MurphyPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 6, 2012

d0530 

# Order

June 6, 2012

144490 & (35)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144490 COA: 298960 Kent CC: 09-006895-FH SHANE VICTOR CURLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion to file a pro per supplement to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The applic ation for leave to appeal the November 29, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presente d should be reviewed by this Court.
1

Filed 9/6/13 P. v. N icoll CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Tehama)

----

THE PEOPL E,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CHRISTINA RENEE NICOLL,

Defendant and Appellant. C071815

(Super. Ct. No. NCR81054)

This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ).

Having reviewed the record as required by Wende , we affirm the judgment.

We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of

the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKG ROUND

On February 2, 2011, around 11:00 p.m., defendant Christina Renee Nicoll

became angry with her husband after he came home intoxicated. They first argued inside2

the house, where several items were broken and defendant threw her husband’s clothes

on the front steps. The argument then moved outside, where defendant threw a rock at

her husband, striking him in the forehead. Defendant then got into her car and drove

toward where her husband was standing, causing him to jump out of the way. Next,

she r ammed her husband’s truck, causing her car to become stuck underneath the truck.

Defendant showed signs of being under the influence of drugs, including displaying

rapid eye movement, dilated pupils that did not react to light, rapid pulse, and quickly

ch anging moods. She had also urinated in her pants.

Defendant pleaded guilty to corporal injury to a spouse (Pen. Code, § 273.5,

subd. (a)) and driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol (Veh. Code, § 23152,

subd. (a)), and was placed on three years’ formal probation.

Defendant subsequently admitted violating her probation by smoking

methamphetamine. The trial court revoked probation, sentenced defendant to three

years in state prison and awarded 245 days of presentence credit (147 actual and

98 co nduct). The trial court subsequently amended the award of presentence credits

to 294 days (147 actual and 147 conduct).

Defendant obtained a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5) and

appeals.

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represen t defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening

brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and

determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. ( Wende

, supra , 25 Cal.3d

436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within

30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and

we have received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination

of the entire record, w e find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more

favorable to defendant.3 DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

MURRAY , J.

We concur:

BLEASE , Acting P. J.

HOCH , J.
----

----

EXHIBIT(32)(a)

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

|                         |   |                                       |
|------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|                         |   |                                       |   |
| Date:      February 23, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Vinod M. Khilnani                 |   |
|                         |   | Vinod      M. Khilnani                     |   |
|                         |   | President      and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                         |   |                                       |   |
#### BEN’S SELTZER, INC. and John Lee Brown, Appellants, v. William T. MARKEY et al., Appellees.

No. 71-283.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 2, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 30, 1971.

*378Sherouse & Virgin, Miami, for appellants.

Dollar & Glassford, Spencer & Taylor, Alvin N. Weinstein, Miami, for appellees.

Before SWANN, C. J., and PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellee Markey sued the appellants, Ben’s Seltzer, Inc. and John Lee Brown for damages sustained in an automobile collision. He alleged that the appellants were the owners and operators of a truck which was improperly stopped in the roadway, that the appellant had stopped to pick up crates which had dropped onto the road, and that appellee’s automobile was unable' to avoid a collision with the stopped truck.

The facts revealed at trial were that defendant-appellant’s truck stopped on MacArthur Causeway on the lower portion of an arched bridge. Plaintiff-ap-pellee ran into the rear of defendant’s truck. Plaintiff-appellee presented evidence from which the jury could find that appellant’s truck was improperly stopped in a lane of traffic on the bridge and that appellee was unable to avoid the collision by the use of diligence.

Appellant’s defense consisted of a general denial under which they introduced evidence tending to show that the appellee did not have his vehicle under proper control. In this defense appellant was aided by the rule that in rear-end automobile collision cases the driver of the following car is presumed negligent.

On this appeal it is urged that the appellant-defendant’s evidence aided by the presumption is so strong that the court should have directed the verdict for the appellant as a matter of law. This argument presents a question of the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s evidence in the trial court. We have examined the record and find the evidence sufficient to raise a question of appellee’s negligence.

Affirmed.
#### Pauline Campbell SIMS and Reedy L. Sims, her husband, et al., Appellants, v. Matthew BARNES et al., Appellees.

No. T-78.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 26, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3117 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3117

  To initiate planning and design for a replacement facility at Fort 
     Campbell, Kentucky, for the purpose of providing educational 
       opportunities for military personnel and their dependents.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 22, 1993

  Mr. Barlow introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Appropriations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To initiate planning and design for a replacement facility at Fort 
     Campbell, Kentucky, for the purpose of providing educational 
       opportunities for military personnel and their dependents.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following sums 
are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
appropriated, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, for 
military construction functions administered by the Department of 
Defense, and for other purposes, namely:

                      military construction, army

    For study, planning, design, architect and engineer services for a 
replacement facility at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, to provide educational 
opportunities for military personnel and their dependents, $1,000,000 
to remain available until September 30, 1998.

                                 <all>
```
Order entered November 24 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 15

- 0085 3

- CR

SELVIN SANTOS

- HERNANDEZ , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas T rial Court Cause No. F1 3

- 30682

- V



### O RDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether appellant

has been deprived of the reporter’s record because of ineffective counsel, indigence, or for any

other reason.

 The trial court sh all first determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal. If the trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute the appeal, it shall make a finding to that effect.

 If the trial court determines that appellant desires to p rosecute the appeal, it shall next determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment of costs for the reporter’s record. If appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs, the trial court shall make a finding to th at effect. Moreover, if appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel. If the trial court finds appellant is not indigent, it s hall determine whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. The trial court shall next determine: (1) the name and address of each court reporter who

recorded the proceedings in this cause; (2) the court reporter’s explanation for the delay in fili ng the reporter’s record; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter’s record can be filed.

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record, containing the written findings of fact,
any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within TH IRTY DAYS of the date

of this order.

The appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeal
shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received,

whichever is earlier.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
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 Annual Report of Daxor Corporation on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph Feldschuh, M.D., Chief Executive Officer
of Daxor Corporation, 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 Daxor Corporation /s/ Joseph Feldschuh, M.D.Joseph Feldschuh, M.D.
  Chief Executive OfficerDate: April 17, 2006 55
#### Donald H. McGREGOR, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of his minor son, Robert T. McGregor v. UNITED FILM CORP. et al.

No. 61255.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 20, 1978.

In re: Donald H. McGregor, individually and as administrator of estate of his minor son, Robert T. McGregor and Robert T. McGregor, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge. 351 So.2d 1224.

Writ denied.

DIXON, J., would grant this writ.
# C_2013296EN.01000201.xml

| 12.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

11 October 2013

2013/C 296/03

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3566 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 133,38 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4593 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84900 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,7659 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2314 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1285 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,534 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 294,87 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7027 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1932 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4476 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,6837 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4318 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4094 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,5195 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6261 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6901 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 452,65 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,3883 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,3004 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6040 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 790,73 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,3124 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,401 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 43,7275 |
| THB | Thai baht | 42,434 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,9533 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,7186 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 82,8610 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3566

JPY

Japanese yen

133,38

DKK

Danish krone

7,4593

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84900

SEK

Swedish krona

8,7659

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2314

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1285

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,534

HUF

Hungarian forint

294,87

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7027

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1932

RON

Romanian leu

4,4476

TRY

Turkish lira

2,6837

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4318

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4094

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,5195

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6261

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6901

KRW

South Korean won

1 452,65

ZAR

South African rand

13,3883

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,3004

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6040

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 790,73

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,3124

PHP

Philippine peso

58,401

RUB

Russian rouble

43,7275

THB

Thai baht

42,434

BRL

Brazilian real

2,9533

MXN

Mexican peso

17,7186

INR

Indian rupee

82,8610

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ELROY JAY WEASELBEAR, Sr.,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-30111

D.C. No. 1:12-cr-00069-RFC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Richard F. Cebull, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 18, 2014** 

Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. 

Elroy Jay Weaselbear, Sr., appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the ten-year term of supervised release imposed following his guiltyplea conviction for incest, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1153(b) and Montana Code

FILED

FEB 26 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Annotated § 45-5-507(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we

vacate and remand.

Weaselbear contends, and the government concedes, that the ten-year term

of supervised release exceeds the statutory maximum. The maximum authorized

term of supervised release for a Class A felony is five years. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(b)(1). Accordingly, we vacate the term of supervised release and remand

to the district court for the limited purpose of setting a new term within the

statutorily permitted range. See United States v. Guzman-Bruno, 27 F.3d 420, 423

(9th Cir. 1994). 

VACATED and REMANDED.

2 13-30111
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 Annual Report of QSGI INC (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc Sherman, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting 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 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.




Date: July 23, 2010

/s/Marc ShermanMarc Sherman

Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer & Chief Accounting Officer


·
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to QSGI INC. and will be retained by QSGI INC. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3054

To revive and extend until January 1, 1996, the suspension of duty on

norfloxacin.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 13, 1993

Mr. VALENTINE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To revive and extend until January 1, 1996, the suspension

of duty on norfloxacin.

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

3 SECTION 1. REVIVAL AND EXTENSION OF DUTY SUSPEN4 SION.

5 Heading 9902.30.85 of the Harmonized Tariff

6 Schedule of the United States is amended by striking ‘‘12/

7 31/92’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/95’’.

8 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made by section

10 1 applies with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from
2

•HR 3054 IH

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after

2 the date of the enactment of this Act.

3 (b) RETROACTIVE APPLICATION TO CERTAIN EN4 TRIES.—Notwithstanding section 514 of the Tariff Act of

5 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514) or any other provision of law, upon

6 a request filed with the appropriate customs officer before

7 the date that is 90 days after the date of the enactment

8 of this Act, any entry, or withdrawal from warehouse for

9 consumption, of goods described in heading 9902.30.85 of

10 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States that

11 was made—

12 (1) after December 31, 1992, and

13 (2) before the 15th day after the date of the en14 actment of this Act,

15 shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry

16 or withdrawal occurred on the 15th day after the date of

17 the enactment of this Act.

Æ
Exhibit 32.0
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  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 consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company
as of and for the period covered by the Report.
 By:
    /s/ Michael P. GavinMichael P. GavinPresident and Chief Executive Officer,
Chief Financial Officer and Director
(principal executive officer and principal financial and accounting officer)
# C_2014040EN.01000301.xml

| 11.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 40/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 40/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

10 February 2014

2014/C 40/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3638 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 139,26 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4623 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,83160 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,8457 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2234 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,3580 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,547 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 310,88 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1803 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4748 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,0251 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5259 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5063 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,5791 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6488 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7318 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 461,48 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,1679 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,2652 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6485 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 601,28 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5604 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,404 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 47,4027 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,750 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,2653 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,1372 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 85,0391 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3638

JPY

Japanese yen

139,26

DKK

Danish krone

7,4623

GBP

Pound sterling

0,83160

SEK

Swedish krona

8,8457

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2234

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,3580

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,547

HUF

Hungarian forint

310,88

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1803

RON

Romanian leu

4,4748

TRY

Turkish lira

3,0251

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5259

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5063

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,5791

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6488

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7318

KRW

South Korean won

1 461,48

ZAR

South African rand

15,1679

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,2652

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6485

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 601,28

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5604

PHP

Philippine peso

61,404

RUB

Russian rouble

47,4027

THB

Thai baht

44,750

BRL

Brazilian real

3,2653

MXN

Mexican peso

18,1372

INR

Indian rupee

85,0391

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---