alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


    In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cygni Systems
Corporation Form 10-QSB for the period ending January 31, 2005,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Kim Friesen, President,
Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and Principal
Accounting Officer, of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.


Date: March 15, 2005



By:  /s/ Kim Friesen
         Kim Friesen
         President, Chief Executive Officer
         Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer
         and a member of the Board of Directors
WILLIAM T. MORRISON, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

JACKSON COUNTY, BOARD OF 

COMMISSIONERS,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-3835

Opinion filed December 16, 2016.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus -- Original Jurisdiction.

William T. Morrison, Jr., pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed as moot.

ROBERTS, C.J., MAKAR and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22D0293. BRENT MATTHEW VADOVSKY v. THE STATE.

Brent Matthew Vadovsky pled guilty to aggravated stalking, family violence

battery, and family violence aggravated assault, and, on April 12, 2017, the trial court

sentenced him to twenty years with the first four years to be served in confinement

and the remainder to be served on probation. On November 11, 2021, the trial court

revoked the balance of Vadovsky’s probated sentence. On February 9, 2022,

Vadovsky filed a motion for reconsideration of the revocation. The trial court

dismissed the motion on February 22, 2022, and Vadovsky filed this application for

discretionary appeal on March 10, 2022. We lack jurisdiction.

To be timely, a discretionary application must be filed within 30 days of entry

of the order to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-35 (d); Hill v. State, 204 Ga. App. 582, 583

(420 SE2d 393) (1992). Thisstatutory deadline isjurisdictional, and we cannot accept

an application for appeal not made in compliance with OCGA § 5-6-34 (d). Boyle v.

State, 190 Ga. App. 734, 734 (380 SE2d 57) (1989). Although Vadovsky filed a

motion for reconsideration, the denial or dismissal of a motion for reconsideration of

an appealable order or judgment is not itself appealable, and a motion for

reconsideration does not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal or an application

for appeal. See Campbell v. State, 192 Ga. App. 316 (385 SE2d 14) (1989); Savage

v. Newsome, 173 Ga. App. 271, 271 (326 SE2d 5) (1985).

Here, Vadovsky’s application is untimely as to the November 11, 2021

probation revocation order because it wasfiled 119 days after entry of that order, and

the application is invalid as to the order dismissing his motion for reconsideration.

We thus lack jurisdiction over this application for discretionary appeal, which is

April 11, 2022
hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

04/11/2022
**EXHIBIT32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of U.S. Premium Beef, LLC (the Company) onForm 10-Q for the period ended February 27, 2010 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven D. Hunt,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

     (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

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

|   |   |                                    |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------|
| By:    |   | /s/ Steven D. Hunt                      |
|   |   |                                    |
|   |   | Steven D. Hunt*Chief Executive Officer* |

Date: April 9, 2010
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
      2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the three months period
      ended March 31, 2007 of the Claymore MACROshares Oil Down Holding Trust (the
      " **Registrant** "),
      as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      " **Quarterly**  **Report** "),
      I,
      Steven M. Hill, principal financial officer of MACRO Securities Depositor,
      LLC,
      which acts as the depositor for the Registrant (the " **Depositor** "),
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
            The
                Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly represents,
                in all
                material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
                of the
                Registrant.











Date:
      May
      17, 2007





/s/
      Steven M. Hill


Steven
      M.
      Hill


On
      behalf
      of the Registrant


and
      as
      Chief Financial Officer
Form of Amendment to Employment Agreement - Peter Chernin



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 THIS AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this
“Amendment”) is made as of                  , 2005, between News America Incorporated, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Peter
Chernin (the “Executive”). Capitalized terms used in this Amendment and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in Employment Agreement (as defined below). 
  
 WITNESSETH: 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company and Executive entered into and executed a certain
Amended and Restated Employment Agreement made as of August 1, 2004 (the “Employment Agreement”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company desires to retain Executive in its employ; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement in certain respects; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 
  
 1. Section 3(b)(viii)(A) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to
read in its entirety as follows: 
  
 (A) The Restricted Stock
Units shall be paid by (1) delivery of one share of Stock for each Restricted Stock Unit or (2) cash for each Restricted Stock Unit based on the closing price for each share of Stock subject to each Restricted Stock Unit valued on the date preceding
each payment date specified in Sections 3(b)(viii)(B) and 3(b)(viii)(C)(1) (without regard to any deferrals). 
  
 2. This Amendment may be executed by the either of the parties hereto in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original Amendment, but all
such counterparts shall together constitute one and the same instrument. 
  
 3. This Amendment shall remain in full force and effect for the Term of the Employment Agreement. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to the Employment Agreement on this
     day of              , 2005, effective as of the day and the year first set forth above. 
  

							
	 	 	 	 	News America Incorporated
				
	Dated:	 	  

	 	By:	 	  


	 	 	 	 	Title:	 	 
	Dated:	 	  

	 	 	 	  


	 	 	 	 	 	 	Peter Chernin

  

 2
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-40043

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

ESIQUIEL DE LOS SANTOS,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:05-CR-20-ALL

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Esiquiel De Los Santos appeals from the district court’s January 12, 2009,

judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a 24-month term of

imprisonment to be followed by an 18-month supervised release term. As special

conditions of his supervision, the district court ordered De Los Santos, “[a]s

deemed necessary by the probation officer,” to participate in a drug treatment

program and in a mental health treatment program. De Los Santos argues that

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 8, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 09-40043

2

the district court committed plain error by delegating to the probation officer the

authority to decide whether he should undergo mental health and drug

treatment. Citing United States v. Albro, 32 F.3d 173, 174 (5th Cir. 1994), he

argues that the district court impermissibly delegated its Article III power to

impose conditions of supervised release by giving the probation officer discretion

to decide whether he should participate in mental health and drug treatment

programs. 

To show plain error, De Los Santos must show an error that is clear or

obvious and that affects his substantial rights. United States v. Baker, 538 F.3d

324, 332 (5th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 962 (2009). Our precedents do

not plainly require the result De Los Santos urges. See United States v. Vega,

332 F.3d 849, 853-54 (5th Cir. 2003); United States v. Warden, 291 F.3d 363,

365-66 (5th Cir. 2002). 

* * *

The judgment is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of RAMTRON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION for the year ended December 31, 2010, I, Eric A. Balzer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
RAMTRON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

(1) such Annual Report on Form 10-K of RAMTRON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION for the year ended December 31, 2010, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K of
RAMTRON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION for the year ended December 31, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of RAMTRON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION as of the dates and for the periods
expressed in the report.



|                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Eric A. Balzer                                              
|Eric A. Balzer                                                  
|Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer             
|(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer and
|Duly Authorized Officer of the Registrant)                      

March 9,
2011

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Ramtron International Corporation and will
be retained by Ramtron International Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2


                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
           AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, David I. Brunson, as Chief Financial Officer of North Atlantic
Holding Company, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:

         (1) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (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 results of operations of the
Company.



Dated: November 15, 2004

                                           /s/ David I. Brunson
                                           -----------------------------
                                           David I. Brunson
                                           Chief Financial Officer
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 103

Honoring The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

for its 135 years of service to the people of the United States and

their animals.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 4, 2001

Mrs. MALONEY of New York submitted the following concurrent resolution;

which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Honoring The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for its 135 years of service to the people

of the United States and their animals.

Whereas April 10, 2001, is the 135th anniversary of the

founding of The American Society for the Prevention of

Cruelty to Animals (‘‘ASPCA’’);

Whereas ASPCA has provided services to millions of people

and their animals since its establishment in 1866 in New

York City by Henry Bergh;

Whereas ASPCA was the first humane society established in

the western hemisphere;

Whereas ASPCA teaches children the character-building virtues of compassion, kindness, and respect for all God’s

creatures;
2

•HCON 103 IH

Whereas the dedicated directors, staff, and volunteers of

ASPCA have provided shelter, medical care, behavioral

counseling, and placement for abandoned, abused, or

homeless animals in the United States for more than a

century; and

Whereas ASPCA, through its observance of April as Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Month and its promotion of

humane animal programs on the subjects of law enforcement, education, shelter outreach, poison control, legislative affairs, counseling, veterinary services, and behavioral training, has provided invaluable services to the people of the United States and their animals: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. HONORING THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE

4 PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Congress honors The American

6 Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for its

7 135 years of service to the people of the United States

8 and their animals.

9 (b) TRANSMITTAL.—The Clerk of the House of Rep10 resentatives shall transmit an enrolled copy of this concur11 rent resolution to the president of The American Society

12 for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

Æ
EXHIBIT
10.15





IT
Service Agreement
 By
and Between
 ADM
Tronics Unlimited, Inc. and its Subsidiaries (ADMT) and Ivivi Technologies, Inc.
(IVVI)
 Dated:
 February
1, 2008
 
 
 This
agreement between the above referenced parties is to document the information
technology (IT) services that IVVI will provide to
ADMT.  Therefore:
 
 1.
              IVVI
      in conjunction with its outside IT professionals will service ADMT’s IT
      needs on an as needed basis.2.
              IVVI
      will invoice ADMT monthly for any time it spends in providing such
      services to ADMT.3.
              Rate
      that IVVI will charge ADMT will be determined at date of
      Invoice.4.
              Such
      invoices that IVVI issues ADMT with respect to such services will be due
      within 30 days.
 
 Definitions:
 
 a.
              IT
      Services: Include, but are not limited to: Computer hardware and software
      related issues, network administration, e-mail hosting and administration,
      telephone and cabling installations and
  maintenance.
 
 
 Both ADMT
and IVVI confirm that this Agreement does not infer any other relationship
between ADMT IVVI and does not obligate either party to be responsible for any
debts or other liabilities of the other.  Both ADMT and IVVI are
separate entities and each is responsible for any liabilities
created.
 
 This
Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the
State of New Jersey and shall not be modified or terminated except by a written
instrument executed by the parties hereto.
 
 This
Agreement supersedes any previous IT Service agreements between the parties
hereto, whether written, oral or by practice.
 
 This
agreement shall be reciprocal between both companies.
 
 In
confirmation of the foregoing, the parties hereto have executed this agreement
as of the day and year first above written.
 
 
 /s/ Andre’
      DiMino
              
              /s/ Ed
      HammelAndre’
      DiMino, CEO
              
              Ed
      Hammel, EVPADM
      Tronics Unlimited, Inc.
              
              Ivivi
      Technologies, Inc.
#### Eugene Karl SCHMIDT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-1141.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 9, 1988.

Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, and Kenneth L. Hosford, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Bradford L. Thomas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

JOANOS, Judge.

Appellant was tried and convicted on a charge of robbery, and sentenced to 7⁄8-1⁄2 years incarceration, to be followed by an 8-year period of probation. The question raised in this appeal pertains to the award of credit for time appellant served in out-of-state custody prior to sentencing. We affirm the conviction and sentence, but remand for a determination of the appropriate award of credit for time served pursuant to section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1985).

The Office of the Public Defender was appointed to assist appellant on appeal. After an examination of the record, the Assistant Public Defender assigned to the case filed a brief in compliance with *An-ders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that in his professional judgment no reversible error was apparent in the record. Subsequently, at our request, appellant’s counsel filed a supplemental brief addressing the question of appellant’s possible entitlement to credit for time served in out-of-state custody on the Florida charges. In this supplemental brief, counsel maintains that appellant is entitled to a total of 345 days credit for total time served prior to sentencing on the Florida charge. This credit *1069contemplates time spent in pre-extradition custody in New Jersey, as well as time spent in county jail in Florida. The state agrees the matter should be remanded to the trial court to determine the credit due for time served.

Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1985), requires the trial court to give credit for time served in Florida county jails pending disposition of criminal charges. In addition, the trial court possesses “inherent discretionary authority to award credit for time served in other jurisdictions while awaiting transfer to Florida.” *Kronz v. State,*462 So.2d 450, 451 (Fla.1985). *See also Ali v. State,*476 So.2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); *Osteen v. State,*406 So.2d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); *Zulla v. State,*404 So.2d 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).

The record in this case does not reflect that the trial court recognized its discretionary authority to award credit for out-of-state incarceration. Therefore, we remand with directions to the trial court to consider the appropriateness of an award of credit for the time appellant spent in New Jersey custody on the Florida charges.

Accordingly, appellant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed, and the case is remanded with directions to determine the credit appellant is due for time served.

SMITH, C.J., and ZEHMER, J., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Charlie YOUNG.

No. 87-K-2702.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 26, 1988.

In re Young, Charlie; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. KA87 0646; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “J”, No. 11-86-1136.

Denied.