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


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of Aetrium Incorporated (“the Company”) on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Joseph C.
Levesque, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, Douglas L. Hemer, as Chief
Administrative Officer of the Company, and Paul H. Askegaard, as Treasurer of
the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant 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 result of operations of the Company.







Date:  March
      30, 2010
            
            By:       
      /s/ Joseph C.
  LevesqueName:  Joseph
      C. Levesque
              Title:    Chairman
      of the Board and
              Chief Executive
      Officer





Date:
      March 30, 2010
            
            By:       /s/ Douglas L. HemerName:
      Douglas L. Hemer
              Title:   Chief
      Administrative Officer





Date:
      March 30, 2010
            
            By:      /s/ Paul H. AskegaardName:
      Paul H. Askegaard
              Title:   Treasurer
      (principal financial and accounting
officer)
Supplemental Guidance on the Submission of Petitions under Section 333 of the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012

You are receiving this letter because you have submitted a petition for exemption to the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 

2012 (Public Law 112-95). This letter is to inform you that on September 25, 2014 the FAA 

released Public Guidance for Petitions for Exemption Filed under Section 333, which was not 

available to you at the time you submitted your petition.

The FAA recommends that you review the guidance and, if you would like to submit additional 

information to support your petition, please submit it to your specific docket at 

www.regulations.gov. This additional information will assist the FAA in making an effective 

evaluation of the requested relief.

The guidance is available at 

http://www.faa.gov/uas/legislative_programs/section_333/how_to_file_a_petition/.

Additionally, the FAA granted an exemption to Astraeus Aerial on September 25, 2014 which 

you may also wish to review. This grant of exemption is available at 

http://www.faa.gov/uas/legislative_programs/section_333/media/Astraeus_Aerial-11062.pdf.

You may send supplemental information to the specific docket for your petition for exemption at 

any time providing further information supporting the request for exemption.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5634-H5635]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    OBAMA CARES AND YOU SHOULD, TOO

  (Ms. WILSON of Florida asked and was given permission to address the 
House for 1 minute.)
  Ms. WILSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, Obama cares, and you should, too.
  ObamaCare provides access to much-needed contraceptives for women.
  First of all, it's my body, not yours. I alone bear the burden, pain, 
and joy that it brings. Please stop trying to regulate my reproductive 
organs. They belong to me.
  Have you ever had a menstrual period? Have you ever felt unbearable 
pain in every bone of your body during childbirth?
  Will you be there for a mother when she needs prenatal care, formula, 
diapers? Will you support the Head Start program? Will you focus on 
creating good public schools again? Will you reform foster care and 
stop greasing the prison pipeline with unwanted children?
  There are grandmothers living in trailer parks and public housing, 
singlehandedly raising millions of grandchildren. Where are you when 
Grandmother is trying to feed Jerome, Shaquita, Pedro, Heather, and 
John?
  The only time I see you is on the floor of the House trying to take 
away

[[Page H5635]]

Grandma's Social Security and attacking her Medicare and food stamps.
  Grandma doesn't have a car so she has no ID so she can't vote.
  For some reason, you care about a baby right up until the minute it 
is born into the world, and then you disappear and desert the children 
you claim to protect and love. Shame on you.
  Stop the cradle-to-grave neglect and abuse. Let's create jobs, jobs, 
jobs for the American people. Obama cares, and so should you.

                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to heed the gavel.

                          ____________________
```
**Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 2007 – Dow AgroSciences and Others v Commission**

**(Case T-367/07 R)**

Application for interim relief – Directive 91/414/EEC – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Admissibility – No urgency

1.                     *Applications for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Prima facie admissibility of the main action (Arts 230 EC,
242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1);Council Directive 91/414; Commission Decision
2007/437) (see paras 45-46, 48, 59-60, 64)*

2.                     *Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and
irreparable damage (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 86-89, 91, 101)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of Commission Decision 2007/437/EC of 19 June 2007 concerning the non-inclusion of haloxyfop-R in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (OJ 2007 L 163, p. 22) pending the full resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the application for interim measures; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Reserves the costs. |
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-40259

Summary Calendar

Demontrous Witcher, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

LaSalle Corrections; FNU Jones, Captain, LaSalle Corrections; 

John Doe, Security Officer, LaSalle Corrections; John Doe, Nurse, 

LaSalle Corrections, 

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:20-CV-186

Before Stewart, Dennis, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Demontrous Witcher, Texas prisoner #02197222, seeks leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal of his 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Witcher consented to proceed before a magistrate 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 23, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-40259 Document: 00516482098 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/23/2022
No. 22-40259

2

judge, who determined that the claims were time barred and dismissed the 

case as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted. The district court denied Witcher leave to proceed IFP on appeal.

By moving in this court to proceed IFP, Witcher is challenging the 

district court’s certification that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See

Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). In reviewing the district 

court’s decision, our inquiry “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal 

points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. 

King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). A complaint is frivolous where the 

claims asserted are time-barred. Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 620 (5th 

Cir. 1994). 

Witcher’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. 

Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Because the appeal is frivolous, it is dismissed, and 

the motion to proceed IFP is denied. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2; Baugh, 117 F.3d 

at 202 & n.24. The district court’s dismissal of Witcher’s § 1983 complaint 

and this court’s dismissal of his appeal as frivolous both count as strikes for 

purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 

(5th Cir. 1996), abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 

U.S. 532, 537-40 (2015). Witcher is warned that if he accumulates three 

strikes, he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed 

while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under 

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS 

FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

Case: 22-40259 Document: 00516482098 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/23/2022
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SS. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form, 10-Q/A-1 (the "Report") of
Amaru, Inc. (the "Company"), for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Colin Binny,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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/ Colin Binny
-------------------------------------
President, Chief Executive Officer
January 20, 2010
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 115 (Tuesday, July 31, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5524]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                  REPORTED BILL SEQUENTIALLY REFERRED

  Under clause 2 of rule XII, bills and reports were delivered to the 
Clerk for printing, and bills referred as follows:

       Mr. ISSA: Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 
     H.R. 3609. A bill to provide taxpayers with an annual report 
     disclosing the cost of, performance by, and areas for 
     improvements for Government programs, and for other purposes; 
     with an amendment; referred to the Committee on House 
     Administration for a period ending not later than October 1, 
     2012, for consideration of such provisions of the bill and 
     amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee 
     pursuant to clause 1(k), rule X.

                          ____________________
```
19288

#### State v. Cullen

Affirmed
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7253

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GHULAM MOHAMMED NASIM,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR88-378-HM, CA-96-777-S, CA-95-2816-S)

Submitted: October 20, 1997 Decided: November 14, 1997

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ghulam Mohammed Nasim, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie M. Bennett, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Ghulam Nasim appeals from a district court order denying his

motion to reconsider the court's prior orders denying his request

for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp.

1997). We have already affirmed the district court's order denying

habeas relief in United States v. Nasim, No. 96-7002 (4th Cir. Mar.

24, 1997). Hence, the district court was foreclosed from granting

relief under the law of the case doctrine. See Heathcoat v. Potts,

905 F.2d 367, 370 (11th Cir. 1990); Capital Investors Co. v.

Executors of Estate of Morrison, 584 F.2d 652, 654 (4th Cir. 1978).

Accordingly, the order of the district court is affirmed.

Nasim's motions for appointment of counsel and to stay proceedings

are denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4345 

To direct the Attorney General to establish and carry out a Veteran 

Treatment Court Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 9, 2017 

Mr. CRIST (for himself and Mr. DENHAM) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To direct the Attorney General to establish and carry out 

a Veteran Treatment Court Program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veteran Treatment 

5 Court Coordination Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS. 

7 It is the sense of Congress that veterans treatment 

8 courts are a successful program aimed at helping veterans 

9 charged with non-violent crimes receive the help and the 

10 benefits for which the veterans are entitled. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4345 IH

1 SEC. 3. VETERAN TREATMENT COURT PROGRAM. 

2 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—Subject to the availability of 

3 appropriations, in coordination with the Secretary of Vet4 erans Affairs, the Attorney General shall establish and 

5 carry out a Veteran Treatment Court Program to provide 

6 grants and technical assistance to the State circuit court 

7 systems that— 

8 (1) have adopted a Veterans Treatment Court 

9 Program; or 

10 (2) have filed a notice of intent to establish a 

11 Veterans Treatment Court Program with the Sec12 retary. 

13 (b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the Veterans Treat14 ment Court Program established under subsection (a) is 

15 to ensure the Department of Justice has a single office 

16 to coordinate the provision of grants, training, and tech17 nical assistance to help State, local, and Tribal govern18 ments to develop and maintain veteran treatment courts. 

19 (c) PROGRAMS INCLUDED.—The Veterans Treatment 

20 Court Program established under subsection (a) shall in21 clude the grant programs relating to veterans treatment 

22 courts carried out by the Attorney General pursuant to 

23 sections 2901, 2991, and 3021 of the Omnibus Crime 

24 Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10581, 

25 10651, and 10701) or any other provision of law. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4345 IH

1 (d) REGULATIONS.—The Attorney General shall pro2 mulgate regulations to carry out this section. 

Æ 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                        

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998          
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998    
<CASH>                                           1,529  
<SECURITIES>                                         0  
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,042   
<ALLOWANCES>                                       291  
<INVENTORY>                                     13,692  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,922  
<PP&E>                                          57,833  
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,880  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  92,848  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,614  
<BONDS>                                         25,758  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0  
<PREFERRED>                                          0  
<COMMON>                                           638  
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,674  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    92,848  
<SALES>                                         50,905  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                50,905  
<CGS>                                           37,524 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,524  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,933 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,697
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,249)  
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (751) 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,243)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0  
<CHANGES>                                            0  
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,243)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.21) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.21) 
                                               


</TABLE>
#### Ruth Glanton, Respondent, v New York Hospital et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, J.), entered November 14, 1990, which, *inter alia,*upon a jury verdict, found in favor of plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this medical malpractice action alleging that the amputation of her right leg resulted from defendants’ negligence in failing to diagnose a second blood clot following a thrombectomy, and in failing to diagnose and treat a post-operation infection. The instant record contains ample evidence upon which a rational trier of fact could have made a finding that defendants proximately caused injury to plaintiff as a result of the failure to diagnose the clot and timely treat the infection. *(Nicastro v Park,*113 AD2d 129.) Plaintiff’s medical expert testified that the loss of a pulse in the right leg coupled with a cooler temperature in the leg following the thrombectomy indicated the presence of a blood clot. Further, plaintiff’s expert stated that the presence of above normal white blood count and body temperature following a fasciotomy, along with a bacterial result taken from a culture, indicated infection. Defendants, however, waited ten days until the open wound became "soupy” looking before a second culture was taken and antibiotics applied. By then, plaintiff’s *59leg had become gangrenous, requiring amputation. The fact that defendants’ experts came to a different conclusion is no basis for setting aside the verdict, either as a matter of law or as against the weight of the evidence. *(Yalkut v City of New York,*162 AD2d 185.)

The questions from the jury relied upon by defendants were unrelated to the theories of liability submitted to the jury and the court’s answers, while ambiguous, were, at best, innocuous and do not warrant reversal. Nor may defendants impeach the jury’s verdict by the submission of a post-trial affidavit by a disaffected juror. *(Kaufman v Lilly & Co.,*65 NY2d 449.)

The damages awarded here do not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation (CPLR 5501 [c]) and are, therefore, not excessive.

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
# C_2008183EN.01003302.xml

| 19.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/33

---

Action brought on 16 April 2008 — Spee v Europol

(Case F-43/08)

(2008/C 183/66)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: David Spee (Rijswijk, Netherlands) (represented by: P. de Casparis, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of Europol's decision to withdraw the offer of employment for which the applicant had submitted an application and to subsequently republish it, and an application for damages

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | Annul the decision of 7 January 2008 issued after a complaint and the underlying decisions of 20 June 2007 and 6 July 2007 to declare vacant once again the post of First Officer in the IMT1 Infrastructure Unit and not to appoint the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 7 January 2008 issued after a complaint and the underlying decisions of 20 June 2007 and 6 July 2007 to declare vacant once again the post of First Officer in the IMT1 Infrastructure Unit and not to appoint the applicant;

| — | Order Europol to search for an equitable solution to the situation in which the applicant finds himself following the rash and defective decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order Europol to search for an equitable solution to the situation in which the applicant finds himself following the rash and defective decision;

| — | Order Europol to pay damages to the applicant in the amount of EUR 5 000 net; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order Europol to pay damages to the applicant in the amount of EUR 5 000 net;

| — | Order Europol to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order Europol to pay the costs.

---