alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION





Each of
the undersigned officers of Cyalume Technologies Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, the Company's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q to which this certification is attached (the "Report"),
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




Date:
      November 1, 2010
              /s/  DEREK
  DUNAWAYDerek
      Dunaway, Chief Executive Officer
                (the
      Principal Executive
Officer)




Date:
      November 1, 2010
              /s/  MICHAEL
    BIELONKOMichael
      Bielonko, Chief Financial Officer
                    (the
      Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting
                    Officer)




This
certification is being furnished and not filed, and shall not be incorporated
into any document for any purpose, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or
the Securities Act of 1933.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2451 

To suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures of Paclobutrazol 2SC. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. CORNYN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures of 

Paclobutrazol 2SC. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MIXTURES OF PACLOBUTRAZOL 2SC. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Mixtures of (2RS,3RS)-1-(4- 

chlorophenyl)-4,4-dimethyl-2- 

(1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl)pentan3-ol (Paclobutrazol) (CAS 

No. 76738–62–0) and application adjuvants (provided 

for in subheading 

3808.93.15) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2451 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

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

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Felix PARMS.

No. 87-KK-2508.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 8, 1988.

In re Parms, Felix; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, supervisory and/or remedial writs; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. KW86 1382; Parish of West Baton Rouge, 18th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 861986.

Prior report: La.App., 515 So.2d 464.

Granted.
#### Carol BAKER v. James D. BAKER, Mrs. R.L. Toney, Clara B. Tatum and Ann B. Drye.

No. 91-CA-0873.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 23, 1993.

Carol Baker, pro se.

Michael P. Younger, Chapman & Younger, Brandon, for appellee.

Appeal No. 30834 from Judgment dated July 24, 1991, Joe G. Moss, Ruling Judge, Rankin County Chancery Court.

Before DAN M. LEE, P.J., and BANKS and JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr., JJ.

On Court’s own Motion for Mandatory Dismissal pursuant to Miss.Sup.Ct.R. 2(a)(1) for failure to timely file Notice of Appeal Granted. Appeal Dismissed.
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

CASEY LUCZAK,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-10279

D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00161-PMP

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Casey Luczak appeals from the 121-month sentence imposed following his

guilty-plea conviction for wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and making

a false statement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

FEB 22 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-10279

Luczak contends that trial counsel was ineffective. As a general rule, this

court does not review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal.

See United States v. Benford, 574 F.3d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir. 2009). Luczak has not

demonstrated that this is an “unusual case” justifying consideration of this

contention on direct appeal. See id.

Luczak also contends that the district court erred by applying a two-level

enhancement for use of “sophisticated means” pursuant to U.S.S.G.

§ 2B1.1(b)(8)(C) (2002). The district court did not err because Luczak’s scheme

involved “especially complex or especially intricate offense conduct” in its

“execution or concealment.” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 app. n.6(B) (2002).

Luczak further contends that the district court failed to consider his

gambling addiction when it imposed his sentence and that his sentence is

substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that the district court did not

procedurally err, see United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008)

(en banc), and that, under the totality of the circumstances, the sentence at the

bottom of the guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also Carty, 520 F.3d at 993.

AFFIRMED.
#### Elbert HARRISON a/k/a Lee Arthur Carter v. Richard L. STALDER, Warden, Wade Correctional Center.

No. 88-KH-2578.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 21, 1989.

In re Harrison, Elbert a/k/a; Carter, Lee Arthur; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, Nos. 112692, 83486.

Denied.
#### Ex parte Rube Kenneth LONG. (Re Rube Kenneth Long v. State of Alabama).

86-1458.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 29, 1988.

James Francis, Decatur, for petitioner.

Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Mary Ellen Forehand, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

ADAMS, Justice.

The judgment is due to be affirmed on the authority of *Bickerstaff v. State,*516 So.2d 800 (Ala.1987), wherein we held that it is a question of fact to be determined by a jury whether a defendant charged with DUI “was intoxicated and, if so, whether the intoxication was a result of alcohol consumption prior to or after the commission of an [alleged] offense.”

AFFIRMED.

TORBERT, C.J., and JONES, SHORES and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.
#### Jocelyn Liwanag SHAMBURGER, as Curatrix of JoJo Advincula v. SHINYSEAS SHIPPING LTD., Thenmaris Ships Management, Inc., Thenmaris Chartering (N.Y.), Inc., Baltic Steamship Agency, Inc. and United Kingdom Mutual Steam Ship Assurance Association (Bermuda) Ltd.

No. 87-CC-0235.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 20, 1987.

Rehearing Denied March 26, 1987.

In re Shamburger, Jocelyn Liwanag; applying for remedial writ; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CW-87-0039; Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 36264.

Granted. It is ordered that the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed and vacated and the order of the trial court is reinstated.

DENNIS and LEMMON, JJ., would grant the writ.

CALOGERO, MARCUS and LEMMON, JJ., would grant rehearing.
EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
               ---------------------------------------------------


August 22, 2006

Board of Directors
Charys Holding Company, Inc.
Atlanta, Georgia

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Form 10-KSB filed on
or about August 22, 2006 of the report dated April 30, 2006, relating to the
consolidated financial statements of Charys Holding Company, Inc. for the year
ended April 30, 2006, and to our inclusion as a named expert. Our report
included an explanatory paragraph regarding Charys' ability to continue as a
going concern.


/s/ Miller Ray Houser & Stewart LLP

Miller Ray Houser & Stewart LLP
99 West Paces Ferry Road, N.W., Suite 200
Atlanta, Georgia 30305
CERTIFICATION
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused
such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under
our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in
the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
  /s/ ANTHONY A. SCALESEAnthony A. ScaleseChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
#### STATE ex rel. Randy LAVERGNE v. 19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, State of Louisiana.

No. 88-KH-1868.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 20, 1988.

In re Lavergne, Randy; applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “L”.

Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the matter to the district court for compliance with this Court’s order of July 7, 1988, 526 So.2d 1123.
#### In re SUCCESSION OF Eva Donivan LARMORE.

No. CA 86 1135.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

March 7, 1988.

On Appeal from the Twenty-Second Judicial District Court, Parish of Washington; James R. Strain, Jr., Judge.

For opinion see: La.App., 518 So.2d 1085.

Before LOTTINGER, EDWARDS and ALFORD, JJ.

EDWARDS, Judge,

dissenting.

Because the proof of claim furnished the executors was timely and further provided all required information with respect to the claim, it substantially complied with the requirements of section 3721. Substantial compliance is sufficient. *Olinkraft, Inc. v. Gerard,*364 So.2d 639 (La.App. 2d Cir.1978). Thus the proof of claim was legally sufficient to preserve plaintiff’s right to introduce parole evidence in support of her claim. Accordingly I respectfully dissent.
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*CARLOS ORTIZ

*M. Donald Cardwell,*in support of the petition.

*Ellen A. Jawitz,*deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided February 18, 1998

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 47 Conn. App. 333 (AC 17102), is denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Dale BUNNELL.

No. 87-OK-1086.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 12, 1987.

PER CURIAM.

Granted. The judgment of the court of appeal dismissing relator’s appeal is reversed, and the appeal is reinstated. Relator’s statement on the record at the time of his guilty plea that his plea was conditioned upon his agreement with the district attorney to reserve the right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress was sufficient to constitute an oral motion for appeal under C.Cr.P. art. 914. The trial judge, the prosecution and the defense understood at the time that the matter was being appealed, and there were no objections when the formal written motion was filed more than five days later. Appeals are favored in law, and appeals should not be dismissed on hypertechnical interpretations of a statute which can be reasonably interpreted to preserve the appeal, particularly in the absence of any claim of prejudice by the opposing party.
----

----

**EXHIBIT        32.2**

**CERTIFICATION        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;                  and |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | The                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of                  the                  Company. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| November                    9, 2006 | /s/                  Richard                  Ivanovick                              |
|-------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                | Richard                  Ivanovick                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|                                | Chief                  Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                                                              |

----
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Byron TAYLOR.

No. 86-KO-2288.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 20, 1987.

In re Taylor, Byron; applying for reconsideration to writ denied, January 9, 1987, 499 So.2d 84, 15th Judicial District Court, Parish of Lafayette, No. 86-CR-50961, Sec. C, Third Circuit Court of Appeal, No. CR-86-227.

Reconsideration denied.
Exhibit
      32.1




**CERTIFICATION
      OF**


**PRESIDENT
      AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**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 SouthPeak Interactive
      Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period
      ending September 30, 2008 (the ‘‘Report’’), as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, Melanie Mroz, President and
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Andrea Gail Jones, Chief Financial
      Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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, as amended; 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:
      November 14, 2008




By:
              /s/
                Melanie MrozMelanie MrozPresident and Chief Executive
                Officer


By:
                /s/
                  Andrea
                  Gail JonesAndrea
                    Gail JonesChief Financial Officerand
                  Treasurer
Document

Exhibit 10.1

AMENDMENT TO 
THE 9 Meters Biopharma, Inc.
2012 OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN, AS AMENDED
WHEREAS, 9 Meters Biopharma, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the 2012 Omnibus Incentive Plan (as amended from time to time, the “Plan”);
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) has the authority under Section 11.15(a) of the Plan to amend the Plan at any time; and
WHEREAS, the Board approved an amendment the Plan as set forth herein on November 27, 2020.
NOW, THEREFORE, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Plan, the Plan is amended as follows effective as of November 27, 2020:
1.Amendment. Section 5.01 of the Plan is amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:
“5.01. Eligible Participants. Participants in the Plan shall be such employees, directors and consultants of the Company and its Subsidiaries as the Committee, in its sole discretion, may designate from time to time. The Committee's designation of a Participant in any year shall not require the Committee to designate such person to receive Awards or grants in any other year. The designation of a Participant to receive Awards or grants under one portion of the Plan does not require the Committee to include such Participant under other portions of the Plan. The Committee shall consider such factors as it deems pertinent in selecting Participants and in determining the type and amount of their respective Awards. Subject to adjustment in accordance with Section 11.07, in any calendar year, no Participant shall be granted Awards in respect of more than 4.0 million shares of Common Stock (whether through grants of Options or Stock Appreciation Rights or other Awards of Common Stock or rights with respect thereto) or cash-based Awards for more than $1 million.”
2.   Miscellaneous.
a)Full Force and Effect. Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, all terms and conditions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.


b)Governing Law. All determinations made and actions taken pursuant to this Amendment shall be governed by the laws of Delaware and construed in accordance therewith.


c)Severability. Whenever possible, this Amendment shall be interpreted in such manner as to be effective and valid under applicable law, but if any provision of this Amendment shall be held to be prohibited by or invalid under applicable law, then (a) such provision shall be deemed amended to accomplish the objectives of the provision as originally written to the fullest extent permitted by law and (b) all other provisions of this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-17-00253-CR

Jesus Miguel Villarreal

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

139th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CR-0275-17-C

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

June 28, 2018
#### Gerald DAWKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 86-2089.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 28, 1987.

*189James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and John T. Kilcrease, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Katherine V. Blanco, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

At the sentencing hearing Gerald Daw-kins was orally adjudicated guilty of armed trespass and aggravated battery in accordance with his pleas; however, the final judgment filed the same day recites that Dawkins is guilty of armed burglary and aggravated battery. The written judgment must not vary from the court's oral pronouncement. *Durick v. State,*476 So.2d 317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

Accordingly, we remand this cause to the trial court for correction of the error. The judgment and sentence are affirmed in all other respects.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and HALL and SANDERLIN, JJ., concur.
P.1 

/ ~ ^ /ol(lo) FfRS-Z 

July 29, 1985 

CERTIFIED MAIL 

/ 

Robert B. Sell 

President 

Sohio Chemical Company 

1825 Midland Building 

Cleveland, Ohio 44115 

Mr. Sell: 

SUBJECT: Emissions from Sohio Chemical Company Lima facility 

Under letters dated April 2, 1985 and July 8, 1985, John W. Hougland of 

Sohio Chemical Company provided the Ohio EPA with information concerning 

emissions from Sohio Chemical Company's chemical manufacturing facility 

located in Lima. My staff has reviewed the information and informed me 

that emissions from the Lima facility may be endangering public health, 

safety, and welfare. We disagree with the conclusion expressed by Sohio 

Chemical Company that these emissions are "permitted" or authorized by 

the Ohio EPA. 

The purpose of this letter is to request that Sohio Chemical Company 

cooperate with the Ohio EPA in developing and implementing measures at 

the Lima facility as necessary to minimize risk to public health. We 

are particularly concerned about the potential health impact of emissions 

during upset conditions. 

Please respond in writing within fourteen days of receipt of this letter 

concerning your willingness to cooperate with the Ohio EPA in this matter. 

If there are any questions, or if you would like to arrange a meeting, 

please contact Bob Hodanbosi at (614) 466-6116 or Ken Schultz at (614) 

466-6542. 

this matter will be appreciated. 

cc: 'John W. Hougland, Manager, Lima Chemicals, Sohio Chemical Company 

Ohio EPA: 

Virginia Aveni, Deputy Director 

Kenneth A. Schultz, Chief, Emergency Response 

State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 

361 E. Broad St., Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049, (614) 466-8565 
P.2 

-:f 0 

Robert B. Sell 

Page Two 

cc: (Ohio EPA continued) 

Ken M. Harsh, Emergency Response 

Chuck Taylor, Chief, Division of Air Pollution Control 

Steve White, Chief, Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management 

Bob Hodanbosi, DAPC 

Chuck Hull, DAPC fAlan Lapp, Acting Legal Advisor 

James 0. Payne, Jr., Staff Attorney 

William. Hedeman, Director, Office of Emergency & Remedial Response, 

U.S.'EPA 

National Response Center 
P.3 

- u)hoor- Wuu>/n o/oimulo /ULOtu^u <uM(kx»o. 

_ torthrwoouo Oxd rt*J>n\i-for\'/KSK 0/ W ^^^ °
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Certification
      of Principal Executive Officer**


**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 SRKP 5, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard A. Rappaport,
      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.





/s/
                Richard A. RappaportRichard
                A. Rappaport
              Principal
                Executive Officer
              July
                29, 2008