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 Adagio Acquisition III, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, William Dioguardi, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 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/William Dioguardi
William Dioguardi
Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer
November 28, 2005
DivisionofEnvironmentBureauofAir1000SWJackson,Ste.310Topeka,KS66612SusanMosier,MD,ActingSecretaryFebruary19,2015DepartmentofHealth&EnvironmentPhone:785-296-1692Fax:785-296-7455Tgross@kdheks.govwww.kdheks.gov/barSamBrownbaek,GovernorRE:NoticeofPublicHearingandCommentPeriodregardingaproposedStateImplementationPlan(SIP)Revisionfor2016KansasCross-StateAirPollutionRule(CSAPR)AllocationsTheKansasDepartmentofHealthandEnvironment(KDHE),BureauofAir,isproposingaSIPrevisiontomodifytheallocationsforKansasUtilitiesundertheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency's(EPA)Cross-StateAirPollutionRule.Thisactionwouldreallocateotherwiselostnitrogenoxide(NOx)emissionallowanceallocationsfor2016.InaccordancewithSection110(a)(2)ofthefederalCleanAirAct(CAA)and40CFR51.102,KDHEtentativelyscheduledapublichearingalongwithrequired30-daycommentperiodpriortoadoptionofthisSIPrevisionandsubmittaltoEPA.IfrequestedbyFriday,March20,2015,apublichearingwillbeheldonTuesday,March24,2015at10:00a.m.intheCurtisStateOfficeBuilding,FlintHillsConferenceRoom,ThirdFloor,1000SWJackson,Topeka,Kansas.TheactionstobetakenbytheBureauaredescribedintheaccompanyingpublichearingnoticepostedintheKansasRegister,theKDHEBureauofAirwebsite,theKDHEDistrictOfficesinChanute,DodgeCity,Hays,Salina,Lawrence,Wichita,andregionalnewspapers.PleasecontactTomGross(785)296-1692toletusknowifyouhavequestionsconcerningtheproposedchanges.EnvironmentalScientistAirPlanningandRegulationsMS:pmgEnclosures
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 5 A2 11 9 . MELTON POLLOCK v

. AKOSHUA W I LLI AMS-W ADE.

Th i s cas e b eg an as an act i o n fo r d am ag es i n m ag i s t rat e co u rt

. Fo l l o wi n g an ad v ers e ru l i n g, d efen d an t M el t o n Po l l o ck ap p eal ed t o t h e st at e co u rt , w h i ch en t ered

a ju d g m en t award i n g $2
, 9 6 9

. 0 0 t o p lai n t i ff Ak o s h u a W i ll i am s -W ad e. Po l l o ck t h en
ap p eal ed d i rect ly

t o t h i s Co u rt . W e l ack ju ri sd i ct i o n fo r t wo reas o n s

. Fi rs t , OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (6 ) req ui r e s t h e fi l i ng o f an ap p l icat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap peal “ in al l act io n s fo r d am ag es i n w h i ch t h e j u d gm en t i s $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0

o r l es s .” Jen n i n gs v. Mo s s , 2 3 5 Ga. Ap p

. 3 5 7 ( 5 0 9 S E 2d 6 5 5) (1 9 9 8 ). Seco n d, b ecau s e t h e o rd er at i s s u e d i s p o s es o f a de n o vo ap p eal fro m a m ag i s t rat e co u rt d eci s i o n , OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (1 1 ) al s o req u i red Po l l o ck t o fo l l o w t h e d i s cret i o n ary
ap p eal p ro ced u res

. See S tr a ch an v. Mer it o r M t g

. Co r p

. Ea s t , 2 1 6 Ga. Ap p

. 8 2 (4 5 3 SE2 d 1 1 9) (1 9 9 5).
Po l l ock ’ s fai l u re t o co m

p l y wi t h t h e d i s cret i o n ary ap peal p ro ced u res d ep ri v es

u s o f ju ri s d i ct i o n o v er t h i s ap p eal , wh i ch i s h ereb y DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 08/03/2015 August 03, 2015
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0363

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JOSEPH EDWARD KNOWLES,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including January 22, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 9 2023

11/09/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0363
1 United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

No. 94-20067

Summary Calendar.

Nancy E. HECKER and John Hecker, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

Oct. 4, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of Texas.

Before DUHÉ, WIENER and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Nancy Hecker challenges the district court's dismissal of her

suit as time-barred. We reverse and remand.

BACKGROUND

Hecker filed suit in Texas state court complaining that on

July 8, 1991, Wal-Mart's negligence caused her to slip and fall in

the Wal-Mart store and suffer personal injuries. Hecker mailed her

complaint to the state court clerk's office on or ab out July 1,

1993. On July 7, the clerk's office informed her that the check

enclosed for the filing fee was insufficient and that an additional

$20 was required. On July 9, one day after the applicable two-year

statute of limitations had run, the clerk's office received the

additional amount and marked the complaint filed. About a month

later, Wal-Mart removed the case to federal court and moved to

dismiss it as time-barred. The district court granted the motion.

This appeal followed.2 DISCUSSION

It is undisputed that the applicable Texas s tatute of

limitations required that Hecker file her personal injury suit with

the state clerk by July 8, 1993. V.T.C.A. Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code §

16.003 (person must bring personal injury claim not later than two

years after the d ay the cause of action accrues); Texas Rules

Civ.Proc., Rule 22 (suit is commenced by filing petition in the

office of the clerk). The question before us is whether tendering

documents without the proper filing fees constitutes filing. Texas

case law provides a clear answer.

The longstanding rule in Texas is that "an instrument is

deemed in law filed at the time it is left with the clerk,

regardles s of whether or not a file mark is placed on the

instrument and regardless of whether the file mark gives some other

date of filing." S tandard Fire Ins. Co. v. LaCoke, 585 S.W.2d 678,

680 (1979); s ee also Ar ndt v. Arndt, 709 S.W.2d 281, 282

(Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, no writ) (per curiam).

Furthermore, an instrument is deemed filed even if it is tendered

without the appropriate filing fee. A rndt, 709 S.W.2d at 282

(examining language in statute govern ing filing fees and holding

that paying fees is not a condition precedent to filing); s ee also

Port Distrib. Corp. v. Fritz Chem. Co., 775 S.W.2d 669, 670

(Tex.App.—Dallas 1989, writ dism'd by agr.) (noting that clerk's

refusal to file-stamp a document because filing fee was not

attached was improper). In light of this clear precedent, we must

conclude that Hecker's suit was filed when received by the clerk3

and thus timely.

CONCLUSION

The dist rict court's dismissal of Hecker's complaint is

REVERSED and this matter is REMANDED.
BEFORE & AFTER EVERY FLIGHT

* Check condition of props (run finger along leading and trailing 

edges, flex both blades to check for hairline cracks);

* Check motor shafts have no free play (missing E clip? Loose 

bell housing screw? Bad bearings?);

* Check motors move freely when spun by hand;

* Check condition of battery spade connectors and data pins 

(level, free movement, clean);

* Check camera mounts are secure (and any other attachments, 

e.g. Flytrex core);

* When powered up and idling confirm no unusual noise or 

vibration from motors.

EVERY WEEK or EVERY 10 FLIGHTS, WHICHEVER 

SOONER

* Visual inspection of shell and other plastic components for 

cracking/damage (landing skids, camera mounting plates, etc.);

* Check tightness of motor retaining screws and shell retaining 

screws (both 2.0mm hex);

* Clean data spring pins and battery contact pads with alcohol 

and swab or proprietary electrical contact cleaner and cycle 

spring pins several times to check for spring weakness and full 

unimpeded travel;

* Plug in to Vision Assistant and check tx & IMU calibration state 

and all battery cells have good balance (repeat for all batteries);

* Check batteries for number of cycles and discharge per DJI 

recommendations if required.

Log all date into a pre built spread sheet and retain for two years.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 51 2 25 **consolidated with** No. 21

- 51233 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**E RNESTO**  **V ILLALOBOS** 

**- M**  **ARQUEZ ,**  Defendant

— Appellant **,**

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4: 13

- CR

- 497

- 4 USDC No. 4: 21

- CR

- 707

- 1

Before **Smith, Stewart,** and **Graves,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Ernesto Villalobos

- Marquez appeals his conviction and sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2), along with the district court’s order

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 31, 2022 Lyle W. Cayc e Clerk Case: 21-51225 Document: 00516262138 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2022No. 21

- 51 2 25 c/w No. 21

- 51 2 33

2 revoking the term of supervised release he was serving at the time of the offense. Because his appellate brief does not address the validity of the revocation or the revocation sentence, he abandons any challenge to that order

. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224

- 25 (5th Cir. 1993).
Villalobos

- Marquez contends that it violates the Constitution to treat a prior conviction that increases the s tatutory maximum under § 1326(b)(2) as a sentencing factor, rather than an element of the offense. He correctly concedes that the argument is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he wishes to preserve it for further r eview.
Villalobos

- Marquez has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance. Because Villalobos

- Marquez ’s position “is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,” Groendyke Transp., In c. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), summary affirmance is proper. Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is **GRANTED** , and the judgment of conviction and order of revocation are **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 21-51225 Document: 00516262138 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2022
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6504

MATTHEW DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ALBERTO R. GONZALES, United States Attorney General; ANNA MILLS WAGONER, USAO MDNC; JONATHAN S. GASSER, USAO DSC; BARBARA M. BOWENS, AUSA DSC; WARDEN, Charleston Detention Center, all in their individual and official capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (2:05-cv-00747-MBS) Submitted: October 2, 2006 Decided: January 30, 2007 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Matthew Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Lee Ellis Berlinsky, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina; Eugene P. Corrigan, III, GRIMBALL & CABANISS, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.*Although the magistrate judge indicated that Davis is incarcerated in the Middle District of North Carolina, we note that Davis is incarcerated at FCI-Butner, which is located in the Eastern District of North Carolina. Thus, Davis’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) claims properly belong in the Eastern District of North Carolina. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Matthew Davis, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his civil action without prejudice for improper venue. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. * Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Davis v. United States , No. 2:05-cv-00747-MBS (D.S.C. Feb. 14, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

The meetings 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 Child Health and Human Development Initial Review Group; Biobehavioral and Behavioral Sciences Subcommittee.                    

*Date:*                         March 14-15, 2012.                    

*Time:*                         9 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                              ( print page 12605)    

*Place:*                         The Dupont Hotel, 1500 New Hampshire Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20036.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Marita R. Hopmann, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Scientific Review, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-6911,                         *hopmannm@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS) 

Dated: February 17, 2012.

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2012-4923 Filed 2-29-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
XPEDITE SYSTEMS, INC.

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


  Xpedite Systems Worldwide, Inc., a Delaware corporation

  Xpedite Systems Canada, Ltd., a Delaware corporation

  Xpedite Systems Canada, Inc., a Canadian corporation

  Swift Global Communications Inc., a Delaware corporation
    The following entities are subsidiaries of Swift Global Communications Inc.:
            Swift Global International Ltd., a New York corporation
            Swift Global Communications H.K. Limited, a Hong Kong corporation
            Phone Technology Inc., a Delaware corporation

  ViTel International Holding Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation
    The  following  entities  are  subsidiaries  of  ViTel   International
          Holding   Company,   Inc.:
             ViTel Limited, a United Kingdom corporation
             ViTel Scandinavia A/S Kolding, Denmark, a Danish corporation
             ViTel Bureau Services Limited, a United Kingdom corporation
             ViTel International (H.K.) Limited, a Hong Kong corporation
             ViTel Malaysia Sdn Bhd, a Malaysian corporation
             ViTel International (Australia) Pty Ltd., an Australian corporation
             ViTel International (New Zealand) Ltd., a New Zealand corporation
             ViTel International,   Inc.,   a  New  York   corporation
             ViTel International, Inc., a Delaware corporation
             ViTel Telecommunications of Canada, Inc., a Canadian corporation
             ViTel (Japan) Limited, a Japanese corporation
             ViTel International (AustralAsia) Ltd., a New Zealand corporation
             ViTel Data Network Limited, a Hong Kong corporation
             ViTel GmbH, a German corporation

  Comwave Communications AG, a Swiss corporation
       The following entities are subsidiaries of Comwave Communications AG:
            Comwave (U.K.) Ltd., a United Kingdom corporation
            Comwave GmbH, a German corporation
            U.S. Comwave Communications, Inc., a New York corporation
            Comwave Communications Sarl, a French corporation
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-18-00013-CV

____________________

MARK A. BOLLETER, EHREN C. BOLLETER, SWEN ERIC SPJUT, 

GWENDOLYN JULIA SPJUT, JUSTIN DANCER AND JENIFER A. 

DANCER, Appellants

V.

GRAND LAKE ESTATES PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC. 

AND K & K CONSTRUCTION, INC., Appellees

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 284th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 16-10-12136-CV

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

The appellants, Mark A. Bolleter, Ehren C. Bolleter, Swen Eric Spjut, 

Gwendolyn Julia Spjut, Justin Dancer and Jenifer A. Dancer, filed a motion to 

dismiss this appeal against K & K Construction, Inc. The remaining appellee, Grand 

Lake Estates Property Owners’ Association, Inc., has not filed an objection to the 

appellants’ motion to dismiss. 
2

The motion is voluntarily made by the appellants prior to any decision of this 

Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal 

as it pertains to the judgment granted to K & K Construction, Inc. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 42.1(b). The appeal shall continue as to the judgment granted to appellee Grand 

Lake Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. The style of the appeal is 

accordingly modified to Mark A. Bolleter, Ehren C. Bolleter, Swen Eric Spjut, 

Gwendolyn Julia Spjut, Justin Dancer and Jenifer A. Dancer v. Grand Lake Estates

Property Owners’ Association, Inc.

APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART.

 ________________________________

 HOLLIS HORTON 

Justice

 

Submitted on April 18, 2019

Opinion Delivered April 19, 2018

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
| 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. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                   | China      YouTV Corp. |                             |
|------------------------|------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                   |                   |                             |   |
| February      17, 2009 | By:                    | /s/      Jie      Wang           |   |
|                   |                   | Jie      Wang                    |   |
|                   |                   | Principal      Financial Officer |   |
|                   |                   |                             |   |
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.82 MB)

Tags:EAP, Employee Aisstance Program

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery