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

CERTIFICATION

Each of the undersigned officers of NeuroMetrix, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies to his knowledge that 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: August 8, 2008

/s/SHAI N. GOZANI, M.D., PH.D.Shai N. Gozani, M.D., Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer and President/s/JOSEPH A. CALOJoseph A. Calo Treasurer (Principal Financial 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.

---



QuickLinks
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 Housing and Urban Development

          - [Docket No. FR-5601-N-13]

# AGENCY:

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7262, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in                     *National Coalition for the Homeless*                     v.                     *Veterans Administration,*                     No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings                           ( print page 19305)                        and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.                

Dated: March 22, 2012.

Mark R. Johnston,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs.

[FR Doc. 2012-7317 Filed 3-29-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
#### GARRISON v. HUDSPETH, Warden.

No. 1948.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Dec. 19, 1939.

Richard M. Lee, of Denver, Colo., for appellant.

Summerfield S. Alexander, U. S. Atty., and Homer Davis, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Topeka, Kan., for appellee.

Before PHILLIPS, BRATTON, and HUXMAN, Circuit Judges.

PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

An indictment was returned against the petitioner in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Louisiana containing 26 counts, charging him with violations of 18 U.S.C.A. § 76.

The first count of the indictment charged that on or about August 22, 1937, in the Western District of Louisiana, petitioner, with intent then and there to defraud Mashack Whorton, did knowingly, wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and falsely assume and pretend to be an officer and employee acting under authority of the United States, namely, a government physician. Petitioner entered a plea of not guilty to each count of the indictment, and was tried and convicted.

On the first count of the indictment he was sentenced to serve a term of three years in the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas. Imposition of sentences on the remaining counts was suspended and petitioner was placed on probation for a period of five years.

In the petition for habeas corpus, petitioner alleged that he was sentenced to a term of two years on the first count and one year on the second count, and nothing was said as to how these sentences should run; that the court erred in naming the Southwestern Reformatory at El Reno as the place of confinement; that the court erred in charging the jury; that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction; and that the indictment did not charge an offense against the United States.

The challenge to the validity of the sentences is not predicated on fact and is clearly without merit.

 Errors in instructions and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction are not reviewable on habeas corpus. It may not be used as a substitute for an appeal. Moore v. Aderhold, 10 Cir., 108 F.2d 729, decided December 19, 1939.

*734It is well settled that defects in an indictment, not going to the jurisdiction of the court which pronounced sentence, may not be raised on habeas corpus. Hence, on habeas corpus the question is not whether the indictment is vulnerable to direct attack by. motion or demurrer, but whether it is so fatally defective as to deprive the court of jurisdiction. Here, the offenses charged in the indictment were neither colorless nor impossible ones under the law and were sufficient to give the court jurisdiction of the subject-matter and the person of petitioner. Moore v. Aderhold, supra. Furthermore, the indictment charged the offenses in the language of the statute and in our opinion was clearly sufficient. See Lamar v. United States, 241 U.S. 103, 111, 116, 36 S.Ct. 535, 60 L.Ed. 912.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### STATE ex rel. Cleavon ARMSTRONG v. Charles FOTI, Sheriff.

No. 87-KH-0130.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1987.

In re Armstrong, Cleavon; applying for remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “F.”

Denied. First file in district court.
**Cause No.** **2001-PC-1263 IN** **THE MATTER** **OF ESTATE** **OF IN** **THE PROBATE** **gOJJjlT^**

### 2*

### ADMINISTRATOR**FOR ESTATE** **OF KING)** **NUMBER ONE** **sTr Petitioner** **$-,**

### v.**""-rTri.-iMN BEXAR** **COUNTY, ETAL** 

### Respondents,**FOR BEXAR** **COUNTY, TEXAS** **FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL** **NOTICE OF** **APPEAL,**

### Notice**is hereby** **given, pursuant** **to Tex.** **R. App.** **Pro 27.1** **and subjeft** **t(|the>eli requested** **in Appellant's** **pending motion** **for abatement** **relief, that** **an ai** **No. 2001-PC-1263** **is taken** **in the** **Texas Fourth** **Court of** **Appeals from** **the^r County** **Probate Court** **#1, dated** **June 29,2015,** **and from** **administrative findings** 

### by**the Probate** **Court on** **July 21,2015.** **Appellant construes** **the events** **of June** **29,2015 and** **on**

### July**21,2015 as** **manifestation of** **the Probate** **Court's intention** **to accord** **finality the** **dismissal of** **Appellant's claims** **for relief,** **in that** **the final** **order grants** **the respondents'** **motion for a** **nunc pro** **tune dismissal** **order in** **lieu of** **the erroneously** **dated order** **on March** **31.2015, and** **in that** 

### the**administrative findings** **operate as** **final response** **to Appellant's** **notice of** **late filing** **of findings** **of fact** **and conclusions** **of law** **filed on** **July 10,2015.** **Appellant reserves** **special exceptions** **to the** **actions taken** **on July** **21,2015 on** **jurisdictional and** **evidentiary grounds,** **and reserves** **challenges to** **their legal** **insufficiency for** **presentation as** **part of** **his regular** **appeal. Dated:** **July 27,2015** **Respectfully Submitted,** **Rowland J.** **Ma 951** **Lombrano San** **Antonio, Tx** **78207 (210)** **323-3849 CERTIFICATE** **OF SERVICE** **delivered copy** **of this,** **"Final Supplemental** **Notice of Appeal,"** **to Attorney** **Karen Evertson** **c/o 411** **S. Frio** **St., San** **Antonio, Tx.,** **via email** **on July** **14,2015. Rowland** **J. Martin**
1188, SILVERCITY, NEW MEXICO 88062 • (575) 538-3731 ,. 

## 9, 

## RE: 

## 06 Dear 

## email at
#### Joseph Charles CRAFT, et al., Petitioners, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 68421.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 7, 1988.

Eric A. Latinsky, Daytona Beach, for Craft and Parnell.

Michael H. Lambert, P.A., Daytona Beach, for Young, Taylor, Burton and Franchini.

*692Stephen L. Boyles, State Atty. and John V. Doyle, Asst. State Atty., Daytona Beach, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We accepted jurisdiction to review *State v. Young,*483 So.2d 31 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), because of apparent conflict with, inter alia, *State v. Ducksworth,*408 So.2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). However, upon closer examination we do not find the express and direct conflict of decisions required by article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review as improvidently granted.

It is so ordered.

MCDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
**REVISED ENGINEERING REPORT WHICH INCORPORATES INFORMATION IN LETTER**

**DATED AUGUST 9, 2002,**

**REVISIONS ARE SHOWN IN BOLD TYPE**

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 02-0659 ENGINEER: Arnold/MAM

PV (kg/yr):

SUBMITTER: Crompton Corportion

MSDS: Yes Label: No

General Eqp.: 4H, Butyl, Neoprene, Nitrile, or PVC-coated

gloves/safety glasses/local exhaust

ventilation

Respirator: If personnel exposure exceeds the exposure

limits, select appropriate protective equipment

in accordance with NIOSH recommendations.

Health Effects: slightly toxic/irritant to

skin/eyes/lungs/mucous membrane

TLV/PEL (PMN or raw materials): (Sn) 0.1 mg/m3 TWA

CRSS:

Chemical Category: Stannane,

dimethylbis[[(9Z)-1-oxo-9-octadecenyl]ox

y]-

VP: <1E-06 torr @25  C

S-H 2 O: <1E-04 g/L

MW: 711.69

Phys State: Neat: Liquid; Mfg: Liquid; Proc/Form: NA;

End Use: Liquid

Consumer Use:INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT Page # 2

PMN: 02-0659

SAT (concerns):

Ground Water: Migration to ground water = negl

Health: 2-3; Dermal, inhalation

Eco: 3; All releases to surface waters

PBT: PMN P1B2T2; Sn P3B2T2

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1-2

ASSUMPTIONS:

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS: None listed

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEWINITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT Page # 3

PMN: 02-0659

MFG:

Site/Location

Days/yr:

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES (Eqpt. cleaning, container residue, etc.):

rom:

to:

basis:

OR

from:

basis:INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT Page # 4

PMN: 02-0659

MFG:(cont.)

basis:

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE

Tot. # of workers:

Days/yr:

Inhalation:

Dermal:

Basis:INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT Page # 5

PMN: 02-0659

PROC/USE:

Site/Location:

Days/yr:

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES (Eqpt. cleaning, container residue, etc.):

:

from:

to:

basis:

OR

from:

basis:

)

AND/OR

from:

basis:

dINITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT Page # 7

PMN: 02-0659

PROC/USE: (cont.)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE

Tot. # of workers:

Days/yr:

Inhalation:

Dermal

BasisCONTACT REPORT

(Telephone Log)

PMN: 02-0659

Call By: Monaca McNall (Eastern Research Group for

EPA/OPPT/CEB)

Call To:

Submitter: Crompton Corp.

Date: 05/28/02

Time: 1:30 pm

Q1:

A1:

Q2:

A2:

Q3:

A3:

Q4:

A4:
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Edward ZAPETIS, Respondent.

No. 93-2784.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 6, 1993.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Edward Giles, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for petitioner.

No response required for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The State filed a petition for writ of common law certiorari requesting review of the trial court’s order denying the State’s motion for neuropsychological examination prior to a hearing on respondent’s competency to stand trial. We deny review.

The trial court appointed two experts to examine the respondent. Additionally, the respondent’s own expert examined him. The State’s motion for access to the respondent to permit examination by its expert was denied without prejudice to renew it if it later appeared that one of the experts had relied upon the findings of another expert instead of conducting an independent examination, or if the defense expert acted as an advocate rather than as an independent examiner. The State renewed its motion, and it was again denied without prejudice to renew at the close of the competency hearing if it appeared at that time that one or more of the experts did not conduct a truly independent examination.

The State does not argue that the order denying access without prejudice will substantially impair the State’s ability to prosecute this ease, the standard required for certiorari review of pretrial orders in criminal proceedings. *State v. Pettis,*520 So.2d 250, 253 (Fla.1988). Further, the State has not demonstrated the existence of irreparable harm as required by *Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage,*509 So.2d 1097 (Fla.1987), because this order was entered without prejudice and subject to reconsideration at the time of the competency hearing.

Finally, the State has failed to demonstrate that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law. The State relies on *State v. Battle,*302 So.2d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA1974) and *Bannister v. State,*358 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 2d DCA) *cert. denied,*364 So.2d 891 (Fla.1978). Both *Battle*and *Bannister*involved orders denying the State’s expert access to a defendant who had raised the insanity defense, contrary to the requirements of former rule 3.210(c), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure (now Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.216(h)). However, unlike the rule on the *862insanity defense, the rules governing the determination of the defendant’s competency to stand trial do not specifically authorize the State to call its own expert at the competency hearing. *See*Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.210-3.212.

Accordingly, for all of the above reasons, certiorari is denied.

HERSEY, WARNER and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
IIA

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 1

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating

to voluntary school prayer.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 19, 1999

Mr. THURMOND introduced the following joint resolution; which was read

twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States relating to voluntary school prayer.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is hereby proposed as an amendment to the

5 Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to

6 all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution if rati7 fied by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

8 States within seven years from the date of its submission

9 to the States by the Congress:
2

•SJ 1 IS

1 ‘‘ARTICLE—

2 ‘‘Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to

3 prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or

4 other public institutions. No person shall be required by

5 the United States or by any State to participate in prayer.

6 Neither the United States nor any State shall compose

7 the words of any prayer to be said in public schools.’’.

Æ
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.1


                        POWER OF ATTORNEY WITH RESPECT TO
                ANNUAL REPORT OF COLLINS & AIKMAN CORPORATION ON
                 FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2003

         Each of the undersigned appoints each of J. Michael Stepp and Jay B.
Knoll as his or her true and lawful attorney and agent to do any and all acts
and things and execute any and all instruments which the attorney and agent may
deem necessary or advisable in order to enable Collins & Aikman Corporation (the
"Corporation") to comply with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and any
requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, in connection with the
Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003,
and any and all amendments thereto, including, but not limited to, power and
authority to sign his or her name (whether on behalf of the Corporation, or as a
director or officer of the Corporation, or by attesting the seal of the
Corporation, or otherwise) to such instruments and to such Annual Report and any
amendments thereto, and to file them with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. The undersigned ratifies and confirms all that any of the attorneys
and agents shall do or cause to be done by virtue hereof. Any one of the
attorneys and agents shall have, and may exercise, all the powers conferred by
this instrument.

         Each of the undersigned has signed his or her name as of March 16,
2004.

/s/ Charles E. Becker                           /s/ W. Gerald McConnell
----------------------------                    ----------------------------
Charles E. Becker                               W. Gerald McConnell

/s/ Dean Robert C. Clark                        /s/ Senator Warren B. Rudman
----------------------------                    ----------------------------
Dean Robert C. Clark                            Senator Warren B. Rudman

/s/ Marshall A. Cohen                           /s/ J. Michael Stepp
----------------------------                    ----------------------------
Marshall A. Cohen                               J. Michael Stepp

/s/ David C. Dauch                              /s/ David. A. Stockman
----------------------------                    ----------------------------
David C. Dauch                                  David. A. Stockman

/s/ Cynthia L. Hess                             /s/ Daniel P. Tredwell
----------------------------                    ----------------------------
Cynthia L. Hess                                 Daniel P. Tredwell

/s/ Timothy D. Leuliette                        /s/ Samuel Valenti III
----------------------------                    ----------------------------
Timothy D. Leuliette                            Samuel Valenti III

/s/ Elkin McCallum
----------------------------
Elkin McCallum
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of Baseline Oil & Gas Corp. (the
Company), does hereby certify under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |  |  |                        
|---------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Dated: August 14, 2008 |  |  |  |                        
|                       |  | 
|                       |  |  |  | /s/ Patrick H. McGarey 
|                       |  |  |  | Patrick H. McGarey     
|                       |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer

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.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 161 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con.Res.161
                                         Agreed to July 12, 2002        

                      One Hundred Seventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
          the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

                          Concurrent Resolution

Whereas June 25, 2001, marks the fifth anniversary of the tragic 
  terrorist bombing of the Khobar Towers military housing compound in 
  Dhahran, Saudi Arabia;

Whereas 19 members of the United States Air Force were killed in the 
  bombing and 250 other United States military personnel were wounded;

Whereas the 19 airmen killed while serving their country were Captain 
  Christopher Adams, Sergeant Daniel Cafourek, Sergeant Millard 
  Campbell, Senior Airman Earl Cartrette, Jr., Sergeant Patrick Fennig, 
  Captain Leland Haun, Sergeant Michael Heiser, Sergeant Kevin Johnson, 
  Sergeant Ronald King, Sergeant Kendall Kitson, Jr., Airman First 
  Class Christopher Lester, Airman First Class Brent Marthaler, Airman 
  First Class Brian McVeigh, Airman First Class Peter Morgera, Sergeant 
  Thanh Nguyen, Airman First Class Joseph Rimkus, Senior Airman Jeremy 
  Taylor, Airman First Class Justin Wood, and Airman First Class Joshua 
  Woody;

Whereas the families of these brave airmen still mourn their loss;

Whereas on September 24, 1996, the House of Representatives agreed to 
  House Concurrent Resolution 200 of the 104th Congress honoring the 
  victims of that terrorist bombing;

Whereas those guilty of the attack have yet to be brought to justice; 
  and

Whereas terrorism remains a constant and ever-present threat around the 
  world: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That, on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the terrorist bombing 
of the Khobar Towers military housing compound in Dhahran, Saudi 
Arabia, the Congress--
        (1) recognizes the sacrifice of the 19 members of the United 
    States Air Force who died in that attack; and
        (2) calls upon every American to pause and pay tribute to those 
    brave airmen.
  Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

  Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```