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

CERTIFICATION OF THE 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 KeyOn Communications Holdings, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Jonathan Snyder, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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.

|                      |     |                                | 
|--------------------- | --- | ------------------------------ | 
|Date: August 16, 2010 | By: | /s/ Jonathan Snyder            | 
|                      |     |                                | 
|                      |     | Jonathan
 Snyder               | 
|                      |     | Chief
 Executive Officer       | 
|                      |     | (Principal
 Executive Officer) | 

---
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 Defense

###### Department of the Army

          - [Docket ID USA-2012-0005]

# AGENCY:

Department of the Army, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice to Delete Fifteen Systems of Records; correction.

# SUMMARY:

On March 7, 2012 (77 FR 13571-13573) DoD published a notice announcing its intent to delete fifteen Department of the Army Privacy Act System of Records Notices. One of the system deletions had an incorrect “Reason” paragraph. This notice provides a corrected “Reason” paragraph for the deletion of A0600-8-104b AHRC, Official Military Personnel Record (August 18, 2004, 69 FR 51271).

      ( print page 16819)    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Leroy Jones, Jr., Department of the Army, Privacy Office, U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Suite 144, Alexandria, VA 22315-3827 or by phone at 703-428-6185.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The “Reason” paragraph for the deletion of A0600-8-104b AHRC, Official Military Personnel Record (August 18, 2004, 69 FR 51271) should have identified the Privacy Act Systems of Records Notice that now covers these active records. These records are active and covered under A0600-8-104 AHRC, Military Personnel Records Jacket Files (MPRJ) (January 6, 2004, 69 FR 790).

## Correction

In the notice (FR Doc. 2012-5516) published on March 7, 2012 (77 FR 13571-13573), on page 13572, in the third column, for SORN A0600-8-104b AHRC, revise the “Reason” paragraph to read as follows:

Reason:

These records are active and covered under system of records notice A0600-8-104 AHRC, Military Personnel Records Jacket Files (MPRJ) (January 6, 2004, 69 FR 790). Records are transferred to the National Personnel Records Center when the NARA retention has been met.

Dated: March 19, 2012.

Aaron Siegel,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 2012-6884 Filed 3-21-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 983 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 983

  To require the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations to 
   provide for improvements in the conspicuity of rail cars of rail 
                               carriers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 6, 1999

  Mr. Johnson (for himself and Mr. Daschle) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations to 
   provide for improvements in the conspicuity of rail cars of rail 
                               carriers.

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

SECTION 1. IMPROVED CONSPICUITY OF RAIL CARS.

    (a) In General.--Section 20132 of title 49, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) by striking the heading and inserting the following:
``Sec. 20132. Visible markers for train cars'';
        and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(c) Improved Conspicuity.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary of Transportation 
shall--
            ``(1) develop and implement a plan to ensure that the 
        requirements of this section are met; and
            ``(2) issue regulations that require that, not later than 2 
        years after the date of issuance of the regulations, all cars 
        of freight, passenger, or commuter trains be equipped, and, if 
        necessary, retrofitted, with at least 1 highly visible marker 
        (including reflective tape or appropriate lighting).''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 201 of title 
49, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to 
section 20132 and inserting the following:

``20132. Visible markers for train cars.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### John R. WEAKLAND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 86-2791.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 24, 1988.

Ky M. Koch of Bauer, Koch, Mariani & Petrillo, Clearwater, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

THREADGILL, Judge.

John Weakland, convicted of sexual battery and false imprisonment, appeals his sentence to state prison for seventeen years to be followed by probation. He argues that a 1972 conviction for attempted rape in Kansas was scored improperly as a second-degree felony rather than as a third-degree felony, and thus put him in a higher category on the sentencing guidelines scoresheet. We agree and reverse.

The state argues that the attempted rape in Kansas was a Class “C” felony, punishable by up to twenty years in prison, and is comparable to a second-degree felony in Florida, punishable by up to fifteen years in prison. Therefore, the state contends, the offense was properly scored pursuant to 3.701(d)(5)(a)(2), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure (1987).

We would concur with the state except that the charging document in Kansas stated that the penalty for the attempted rape *312was to be assessed pursuant to “penalty-sec. 21-4501(e)” which provides a maximum penalty of up to five years in prison. Further, the appellant was sentenced to a term not to exceed five years. The written judgment and sentence also reflected that sentencing was pursuant to penalty section 21-4501(e).

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(5)(a)(3) provides in part that “[wjhere the degree of the felony is ambiguous or impossible to determine, score the offense as a third-degree felony.” Additionally, in comments and notes on this rule, the committee stated that “any uncertainty in the scoring of the defendant’s prior record shall be resolved in favor of the defendant....”

We therefore conclude that because the Kansas record does not indicate with sufficient certainty that the prior offense of attempted rape should be scored as a second-degree felony, the uncertainty should have been resolved in favor of the appellant. *See Doner v. State,*515 So.2d 1368 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); *Roberts v. State,*507 So.2d 761 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Scoring the conviction as a third-degree felony will result in a recommended guideline sentence of nine to twelve years rather than twelve to seventeen years.

Accordingly we reverse and remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
#### STATE ex rel. Vagie LOVETT v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 88-KH-2346.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 21, 1989.

In re Lovett, .Vagie; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; Parish of DeSoto, 11th Judicial District Court, Div. *“A”*No. 58346; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 20395-KH.

Denied.
#### UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. Janet MOORE, Appellee.

No. BO-123.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 29, 1987.

Barbara C. Wingo, Associate General Counsel, University of Florida, Gainesville, for appellant.

Carla D. Franklin, Alachua, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the appealed order of the Career Service Commission, which determined that the notice of charges was vague and overbroad and directed a verdict in favor of appellee, Janet Moore. The notice contained sufficient information to alert Moore that she was being dismissed from her employment on the basis of three specific job performance evaluation ratings of below performance standards. All three incidents were referred to with sufficient information and reference to correspondence between appellant and appellee to comply with the requirements of rule 22A-10.0042, Florida Administrative Code. *University of North Florida v. Career Service Commission,*452 So.2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (reference to written reprimand in predetermination letter adequate notice that reprimand would be considered in termination action); *Department of Insurance v. Smith,*449 So.2d 925 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (specific reason for dismissal may be unsatisfactory evaluations). *See also Russo v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services,*451 So.2d 979 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The decision in *Florida State University v. Tucker,*440 So.2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), is distinguishable because the notice in that case contained no information to inform the employee of the date, time, or place of the specific incident involved. Here, the dismissal was based on the three specifically alleged unsatisfactory job performance evaluations.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent herewith.

THOMPSON, ZEHMER, and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
#### EMPLOYERS NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. STATE OF LOUISIANA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION SECOND INJURY BOARD.

No. 89-C-1253.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1989.

In re Louisiana Wkrs. Comp. Sec. Inj. Bd; — Defendants); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CA87 1758; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “M”, No. 294-618.

Prior report: La.App., 540 So.2d 1094.

Denied.
#### Bryan Ardis FRAME, et al. v. SHREVEPORT ANTI-TUBERCULOSIS LEAGUE, et al. STATE of Louisiana, Through the DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS v. Bryan Ardis FRAME, et al.

No. 89-C-0649.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 21, 1989.

In re Frame, Bryan Ardis; Mills, Caro P.; Hoose, Nancy Mills Van; Mills, George H.; Koenen, Betsy Frame; — Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Nos. 20269-CA, 20270-CA; Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court, Div. “I”, Nos. 215631, 222187.

Prior report: La.App., 538 So.2d 684.

Denied.

DIXON, C.J., would grant as to the 3.7 acre tract.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in
Registration Statement No. 333-102221 on Form S-3 and in Registration Statements No.s 333-23237, 333-41327, 333-62157 and 333-71892 on Forms S-8 of Radiant Systems, Inc. of our reports dated February 26, 2007, relating to the
financial statements and financial statement schedule of Radiant Systems, Inc (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Companys adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
No. 123(R), Share Based Payment) and our report dated February 26, 2007, relating to managements report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Radiant
Systems, Inc for the year ended December 31, 2006.



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
|                         
|Atlanta, Georgia         
|February 26, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1797 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1797

   To extend the temporary reduction of the duty on certain textured 
                          rolled glass sheets.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 19, 2009

   Mr. Lugar introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the temporary reduction of the duty on certain textured 
                          rolled glass sheets.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN TEXTURED ROLLED GLASS SHEETS.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.70.03 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to certain textured rolled 
glass sheets) is amended by striking the date in the effective period 
column and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section applies to 
goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 
the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### NORTHWESTERN, INC. and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Appellants, v. GULF ASPHALT CORPORATION and Bay County Commissioners, Appellee.

No. BH-92.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 23, 1986.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 2, 1987.

Bame J. Morain, Pensacola, for appellants.

L. Charles Hilton, Jr., Panama City, for appellee Gulf Asphalt Corp.

Nevin J. Zimmerman of Burke & Blue, Panama City, for appellee Bay County Com’rs.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal and cross appeal from two judgments entered below. The June 5, 1985 judgment awards appellee Gulf Asphalt Corporation contract damages, attorney fees, and costs. The June 12, 1986 judgment denies the claim of appellants for contribution from appellee Bay County Commissioners, and also denies the claim of cross-appellant (Bay County Commissioners) that cross-appellees (Northwestern, Inc. and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company) are responsible for cross-appellant’s attorney fees.

After careful review of the detailed discussions in the briefs, we are unable to find that appellants demonstrated reversible error.

Likewise, cross-appellant has failed to demonstrate that the trial court’s denial of attorney fees is error. Accordingly, we affirm.

BOOTH, C.J., and WENTWORTH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
| (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of §13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §78m or 78o(d), and, |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Dated:  August 14, 2009 | /s/ Darin M. Myman                    |
|-----------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                              | Darin M. Myman                        |
|                              | President and Chief Executive Officer |
Figure 1. Hatfield’s Ferry FGD Wastewater Treatment System Monitoring Program Samplin

FGD Scrubber Purge 

Lime

Reaction Tank 1

SP-1.1

Indicates a Sampling Point

Gravity 

Filter

Clarifier 1

Sludge 

Storage 

Tank

Filter Press

Sump

Gravity 

Filter

Solids to Onsite Landfill

Wastewater Flow

Sludge Flow

Intermittent Wastewater Flow

Clarifier 

Sludge

Clarifier 2

Gravity Filter 

Backwash

Reaction 

Tank 2

Ferric Chloride

Treated 

Wastewater

Storage

Tank

Equalization 

Tank

Effluent 

Recycle

Wastewater 

from Sump

SP-2

Effluent 

Recycle

Polymer

Hydrochloric 

Acid

Organosulfide

Secondary

Hydroclone 

for Unit 1

Secondary

Hydroclone 

for Unit 2

Secondary

Hydroclone 

for Unit 3

Hydroclone 

overflow

Hydroclone 

overflow

Hydroclone 

overflow

SP-1.2

SP-1.3
#### Charles K. HANNAH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4-86-0032.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 10, 1987.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Ellen Morris, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Jr., Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Georgina Jimenez-Orosa, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the conviction and final judgment except with respect to the assessment of two costs which have been assessed in error. The assessments of $20.00 and $4.50 were not made in accordance with the requirements of *Jenkins v. State,*444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984); so we remand for action consistent herewith.

HERSEY, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>


                                   EXHIBIT 99
                           Forward-Looking Statements

The following factors, among others, could cause actual results to differ
materially from those contained in forward-looking statements made in this
report and presented elsewhere by management from time to time.

DEPENDENCE ON OTHERS: The Company's present growth strategy for development and
management of additional lodging facilities entails entering into various
arrangements with present and future property owners. There can be no assurance
that any of the Company's current agreements with property owners will be
continued, or that the Company will be able to enter into future collaborations.

CONTRACT TERMS FOR NEW UNITS: The terms of the operating contacts, distribution
agreements, franchise agreements and leases which relate to the Company's
lodging facilities are influenced by contract terms offered by the Company's
competitors at the time such agreements are entered into. Accordingly, there can
be no assurance that contracts entered into or renewed in the future will be on
terms that are as favorable to the Company as those under existing agreements.

COMPETITION: The profitability of hotels operated by the Company is subject to
general economic conditions, competition, the desirability of particular
locations, the relationship between supply of and demand for hotel rooms, and
other factors. The Company generally operates hotels in markets that contain
numerous competitors, and the continued success of the Company's hotels in their
respective markets will be dependent, in large part, upon those facilities'
ability to compete in such areas as access, location, quality of accommodations,
amenities, and cost.

SUPPLY AND DEMAND: During the 1990s, construction of lodging facilities in the
United States resulted in an excess supply of available rooms, and the
oversupply had an adverse effect on occupancy levels and room rates in the
industry. The current outlook for the industry indicates that the lodging
industry may be adversely affected in the future by (i) international, national
and regional economic conditions, (ii) changes in travel patterns, (iii) taxes
and government regulations which influence or determine wages, prices, interest
rates, construction procedures and costs, and (iv) the availability of capital.
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 Provision Holdings, Inc.  (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Curt Thornton, 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 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.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





February
      22, 2010
            /s/
      Curt ThorntonCurt
      ThorntonChief
      Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)(Principal
      Accounting and Financial Officer)