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

 

**WRITTENSTATEMENT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. 1350**

 

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, I, theundersigned Chief Executive Officer of Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc. (the“Company”), hereby certifies, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Reporton Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2008,(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Larry E. Buffington                                  |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Larry Buffington,  President and Chief Executive Officer |   |   |
| August 19, 2008                                     |   |   |

 

----
Map Created: August 2017

Data Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, REIS, 2015

Per Capita Income Rates in Appalachia, 2015

(County Rates)

Per capita income is a measure of the total personal income of 

an area divided by the resident population of the area. The map 

uses natural breaks in the distribution to organize the data into 

groups of common values. 

0 50 100

Miles

GEORGIA

ALABAMA

MISSISSIPPI

SOUTH

CAROLINA

NORTH CAROLINA

VIRGINIA

WEST

VIRGINIA

KENTUCKY

OHIO ILLINOIS INDIANA

WISCONSIN

MICHIGAN

DE

NJ PENNSYLVANIA

MARYLAND

NEW YORK

TENNESSEE

$20,719 - $30,981

$30,982 - $35,496

$35,497 - $42,248

$42,249 - $54,466

Per Capita Income

U.S. average = $48,112

Appalachian average = $38,593

(Natural Breaks Classification)
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 128 (Thursday, September 20, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6535-S6536]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                   REMEMBERING KENYON MARC YOUNGSTROM

 Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in 
honoring the life of Kenyon Marc Youngstrom, a dedicated husband, proud 
father, loving son, devoted friend, and respected law enforcement 
official. Officer Youngstrom lost his life serving the California 
Highway Patrol on September 5, 2012. He was 37 years old.
  Kenyon Youngstrom was born in Pasadena, CA and raised in Riverside. 
He served as a U.S. Army Reservist from 1994 to 2000, attaining the 
rank of Specialist. He graduated from the California Highway Patrol 
Academy in February 2006 and served at both CHP Headquarters and CHP's 
Contra Costa Area Office.
  Officer Youngstrom served his community with a heroism that extended 
beyond his own life. As the Vallejo Times Herald wrote, Officer 
Youngstrom ``wanted his organs donated so that if something did ever 
happen to him in the line of duty, others might live even if he would 
not.''

[[Page S6536]]

  Officer Kenyon Youngstrom, like all those who serve in law 
enforcement across California, put his life on the line to protect his 
community. He is survived by his loving wife Karen and four children: 
Alexander, Madison, Andrew, and Kennedy. My heart goes out to his 
family and loved ones, and my thoughts and prayers are with them. We 
are forever indebted to him for his courage, service, and 
sacrifice.

                          ____________________
```
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  Consolidated  Pictures Corp.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Steve Lipman,  President and Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

           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.

Dated: November 15, 2004


/s/ Steve Lipman
-------------------------------
Steve Lipman, President and CEO

































                                Exhibit 32.1 - 1
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 129 (Friday, September 21, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H6278]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California:
       H.R. 6529.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Clauses 3 and 18 of Section 8 of Article 1 of the U.S. 
     Constitution.
```
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Madison BancShares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Martin W. Gladysz, Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as added by § 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. | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for
the period covered by the report.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|      |  |                  |  | 
|----- |  | ---------------- |  | 
|Date: |  | October 27, 2003 |  | 
|      |  |                  |  |
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4574 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.4574

                     One Hundred Fifteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

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

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 108 West Schick Road in Bloomingdale, Illinois, as the ``Bloomingdale 
                Veterans Memorial Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. BLOOMINGDALE VETERANS MEMORIAL POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 108 West Schick Road in Bloomingdale, Illinois, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Bloomingdale Veterans Memorial Post 
Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Bloomingdale Veterans Memorial Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Exhibit
      32.4








Certification
      of Chief Accounting Officer






**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


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








In
      connection with the Annual Report of Century Casinos, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned
      certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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, as amended;
                and





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













Date:
      March 8, 2006








/s/
      Ray Sienko


Ray
      Sienko


Chief
      Accounting Officer
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Hanh Kihara, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Bedford Property Investors, Inc.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(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)

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; and



(c)

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



5.

The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(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; and



(b)

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.







March 12, 2004

/s/ Hanh Kihara

Hanh Kihara

Chief Financial Officer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132175 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132175 

 COA: 271268 

Eaton CC: 85-000131-FC 

DAVID HAYMER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 4, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion 

for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). 

s1120 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 29, 2006 

 Clerk
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 3(a)(2)

                   CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF CERTIFICATE OF
                                 INCORPORATION

                                       OF

                             U.S. DRUG TESTING, INC.



It is hereby certified that:

         1.       The name of the corporation (hereinafter called the
"corporation") is U.S. Drug Testing, Inc.

         2.       The certificate of incorporation of the corporation is hereby
amended by striking out Article FIRST thereof and by substituting in lieu of
said Article the following new Article:

         "FIRST: the name of the corporation (hereinafter called the
"corporation") is LIFEPOINT, INC."

         3.       The amendment of the certificate of incorporation herein
certified has been duly adopted and written consent has been given in accordance
with the provisions of Sections 228 and 242 of the General Corporation Law of
the State of Delaware.

         The effective time of the amendment herein certified shall be February
27, 1998.


Signed on February 24, 1998



                                           /s/ Linda H. Masterson
                                           ----------------------
                                           Linda H. Masterson
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Enamelon, Inc. Balance Sheet as of December 31, 1997 and the Condensed Statement
of Operations for the twelve months ended December 31, 1997 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>


<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                        21,624,954
<SECURITIES>                  17,895,107
<RECEIVABLES>                 254,769
<ALLOWANCES>                  10,163
<INVENTORY>                   1,252,207
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              41,529,623
<PP&E>                        2,665,807
<DEPRECIATION>                199,708
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                44,215,589
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         3,409,256
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      9,966
<OTHER-SE>                    40,796,367
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  44,215,589
<SALES>                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              0
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              11,331,821
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            (987,549)
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (10,344,272)
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (10,344,272)
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (10,344,272)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 (1.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 (1.31)



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1873

FAROUKH BAMFORD,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A98-647-665)

Submitted: March 19, 2008 Decided: April 2, 2008

Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adedayo O. Idowu, IDOWU & ASSOCIATES, Silver Spring, Maryland, for

Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney

General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Song E.

Park, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Faroukh Bamford, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s order

denying his motion for a continuance and finding him removable. 

An immigration judge “may grant a continuance for good

cause shown.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (2007). We review the denial of

a motion for a continuance for abuse of discretion. Lendo v.

Gonzales, 493 F.3d 439, 441 (4th Cir. 2007); Onyeme v. INS, 146

F.3d 227, 231 (4th Cir. 1998). The court “must uphold the IJ’s

denial of a continuance ‘unless it was made without a rational

explanation, it inexplicably departed from established policies, or

it rested on an impermissible basis, e.g., invidious discrimination

against a particular race or group.’” Lendo, 493 F.3d at 441

(quoting Onyeme, 146 F.3d at 231). 

Because the immigration judge was without jurisdiction to

consider Bamford’s application for adjustment of status, we find no

abuse of discretion in denying the motion for a continuance.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-60857

JAMES D. SCHAEFFER, 

Plaintiff–Appellant

Cross-Appellee,

versus

WARREN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI;

WARREN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,

Defendants−Appellees

Cross-Appellants.

Appeals from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Mississippi

No. 3:14-CV-945

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 7, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-60857 Document: 00514752580 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/07/2018
No. 17-60857

2

James Schaeffer sued Warren County under various theories including

retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. A jury found liability and 

awarded damages. The district court concluded that Schaeffer had failed to 

mitigate damages by finding alternative employment after his termination. 

The court therefore awarded only nominal damages of one dollar. The court 

also awarded reduced attorneys’ fees. Schaeffer appeals mainly the damages 

determination, and the county cross-appeals on, inter alia, the finding of 

liability.

We have reviewed the briefs, the applicable law, and relevant parts of 

the record and have heard oral argument. The judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially on the bases carefully explained by the district court, especially in its 

thorough 23-page post-trial order of November 27, 2017.

 Case: 17-60857 Document: 00514752580 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/07/2018
#### William Francis CAMPBELL, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12173.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Sept. 7, 1955.

*714John L. Dunn, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

POWELL, Judge.

Plaintiff in error, William Francis Campbell, was charged in the municipal criminal court of the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, of having operated a motor vehicle upon certain streets of: that: City while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. A jury was waived and at the conclusion of the trial the court entered judgment finding the accused guilty of the crime charged, and sentenced him to pay a fine-of $150, and $20.costs> and 20 days in jail, jail time suspended on payment of the fine and costs.

This appeal was filed in this court on February 23, 1955. A brief, under the then rules was due to ■ be filed not later than March 25, 1955, but counsel failed to file brief or appear when the case was set for oral argument on June 1, 1955.

The evidence disclosed that the defendant ran a stop, sign and ran into the side of the car of the prosecuting, witness. The damage was slight and covered by insurance. The defendant claimed that his brakes did not hold. The, evidence was conflicting as to whether the defendant was intoxicated. He was not given a drunk-ometer test. One of the State’s witnesses could not recount any circumstances to indicate that defendant was intoxicated. There was a sharp conflict in the evidence on this point. But there is sufficient evidence to support the judgment of the court as to the charge. Wilkinson v. State, Okl. Cr., 273 P.2d 143.

 The court, however, was not authorized, after entering judgment, to suspend a portion of the same. In State v. Smith, 83 Okl.Cr. 188, 174 P.2d 932, 933, we said, in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the syllabus :

> “Statute authorizing court to’ suspend sentence does not authorize the suspension of just a portion of the judgment and sentence, but if suspension is granted it must be of entire judgment.

> “Act of county court in suspending jail sentence imposed on conviction for unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor upon condition that accused pay fine and costs is unauthorized and the order of the court suspending a part of said judgment and sentence is a nullity.”

*715This court, however, does have jurisdiction by provision of § 1066, Title 22 O.S. 1951, Supp.1953, to modify judgments, and in view of the evidence and in view of the effort of the court to modify the judgment that was rendered, it is the thought of this court that the judgment, should be,,and it is modified so as to eliminate the jail sentence of 20 days, as attempted by the trial court, and it is otherwise affirmed and stands at a fine of $150, and the pay-ment of the costs,

JONES, P. J., and BRETT, J.', concur.